Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ayr Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Ayr Burgh (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act),
presented by Mr. Ernest Brown, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act), to be considered upon the next Sitting day, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

STANDING ORDERS.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): I beg to move,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business as set out in the Schedule attached hereto be approved by the House.

SCHEDULE.

Standing Order 72, page 138, line 22, leave out "again."

After Standing Order 72, insert new Standing Order 72A:—(Meeting of members of companies, etc. (not being promoters) in case of certain Bills originating in this House).
(1) Where any Bill originating in this House contains provisions—

(a) conferring any powers upon; or
(b) altering in any respect the constitution of

any company society association or co-partnership (howsoever constituted) named in the Bill but not being the promoters thereof the Bill shall he referred to the Examiners and Standing Order 71 or Standing Order 72 (as the case may require) shall apply as if such company society association or co-partnership were the promoters of the Bill, and as if in the Standing Order in question for references to the Bill there were substituted references to the said provisions:
Provided that failure to comply with the requirements of Standing Order 71 or Standing Order 72 as applied by this Standing Order shall affect only such provisions as aforesaid, and shall not affect any other provisions of the Bill:

Provided also that this Standing Order shall not apply to any Bill in so far as the provisions thereof relate to a proposal for—

(i) the compulsory acquisition or transfer by or to the promoters thereof of the whole or part of the undertaking or assets of; or
(ii) the imposition of any duty or obligation upon

any such company society association or co-partnership as aforesaid, nor shall it apply to provisions in the Bill for the protection of such company society association or co-partnership.
(2) In the case of any Bill to which this Standing Order applies the title of the Bill shall contain a reference to the name of every such company society association or co-partnership.
(3) Where any such company society association or co-partnership as aforesaid carry on (whether under statutory authority or otherwise) an undertaking for the supply of water, gas, or electricity the promoters of the Bill shall on or before the eleventh day of December deliver or send by registered post either a printed copy of the Bill or notice in writing of the provisions therof to which this Standing Order applies to the council of each county and the local authority of each city municipal or metropolitan borough or district which comprises the whole or any part of the area within which such company society association or co-partnership supply, or are authorised to supply, water, gas, or electricity. Standing Order 23 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply for the purposes of this provision.
(4) Nothing in this Standing Order shall affect the obligations of the Promoters of the Bill under Standing Order 71 or Standing Order 72.

Standing Order 73, page 140, line 29, leave out:
or to dissolve the said Company,
and insert:
or authorising or enacting the dissolution of the promoting company.

Standing Order 73, page 141, line 2, leave out:
or in which any such powers are conferred on any company not being the promoters of the Bill.

Standing Order 73, page 141, line 9, leave out "any such," and insert "the promoting."

Standing Order 73, page 143, line 14, leave out "any," and insert "the."

Standing Order 74, page 114, line 15, leave out "any," and insert "the Promoters thereof being a."

Standing Order 74, page 144, line 27, leave out "any."

Standing Order 74, page 145, line 1, leave out:
or by which any such powers are conferred on any company society association or co-partnership not being the promoters of the Bill.

Standing Order 74, page 147, line 10, leave out "any," and insert "the."

Standing Order 75, page 147, line 21, leave out "the whole Order."

After Standing Order 74, insert new Standing Order 75:—(Meeting of members of companies, etc. (not being promoters) in case of certain Bills originating in House of Lords).
(1) In the case of every Bill brought from the House of Lords in which provisions have been inserted in that House—

(a) conferring any powers upon; or
(b) altering in any respect the constitution of

any company society association or co-partnership (howsoever constituted) named in the Bill but not being the promoters thereof or in which any such provisions originally contained in the Bill have been materially altered in that House Standing Order 73 or Standing Order 74 (as the case may require) shall apply as if—

(i) such company society association or co-partnership were the promoters of the Bill;
(ii) the said provisions were the provisions referred to in the Standing Order in question;
(iii) in the Standing Order in question for references to the Bill there were substituted references to the said provisions of the Bill; and
(iv) the reference to Standing Order 71 or Standing Order 72 were a reference to that Order as applied by this Order:

Provided that failure to comply with the requirements of Standing Order 73 or Standing Order 74 as applied by this Standing Order shall affect only such provisions of the Bill as aforesaid and shall not affect any other provisions of the Bill:
Provided also that this Standing Order shall not apply to any Bill in so far as the provisions so inserted or altered relate to a proposal for—

(a) The compulsory acquisition or transfer by or to the promoters thereof of the whole or part of the undertaking or assets of; or
(b) the imposition of any duty or obligation upon any such company society association or co-partnership as aforesaid,

nor shall it apply to provisions in the Bill for the protection of such company society association or co-partnership.
(2) Nothing in this Standing Order shall affect the obligations of the Promoters of the Bill under Standing Order 73 or Standing Order 74.

Hon. Members will recollect that a few months ago I had to make a special report to the House in connection with the South Eastern Gas Corporation Bill. It was an unusual type of Bill not specifically provided for in the Standing Orders. It was introduced by what is generally called a parent company for the purpose of obtaining powers for the subsidiary companies. Standing Orders made no provision for the necessary notices being given to the persons interested in the subsidiary companies, or for certain meetings of those subsidiary companies being held. I then promised the House that I would appoint a small committee to advise upon and to draw up the necessary alterations in the Standing Orders to effect that purpose.

The Committee did its work, if I may say so, very well, under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). There were two other Members of the House on the Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), to whom I personally, and I am sure the House, will be indebted for their work. I should add only that on that Committee was a representative of the Parliamentary agents, and that the Amendments set out on the Order Paper have been approved as satisfactory to the Parliamentary agents.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

WORKERS (TRAINING).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make regarding the training of workers to assist in war production?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Since my statement in the House on 8th August, 1940, considerable progress has been made with the training of workers to assist in war production. Certain further developments are now in progress, and I hope to make a full public statement on the whole question in the near future.

Miss Ward: If I put down a Question next week, will the Minister be able to make a statement then?

Mr. Bevin: I am not certain.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that the number of trainees in this country is below the number in Germany; when will he reach parity in that respect?

Mr. Bevin: I do not admit that; I do not think the hon. Member is in a position to know—I am not actually in that position—the total number of trainees, having regard to what private firms are now doing.

Mr. Shinwell: When will the Minister be able to produce comparative figures?

Mr. Bevin: It is impossible to produce comparative figures, because the matter is in a constant state of flux. Under the arrangements now made in industry, persons who may be trainees to-day pass very quickly into the ranks of qualified workmen.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress made, and could not he put greater push into the handling of this problem?

Mr. Bevin: I am not satisfied with the progress in training in this country. I have already indicated that I propose to make a further statement in a few days, but it has to be remembered that the amount of statistical information as to what is required has been in process of examination continuously in relation to the programme that has been devised to meet the strategy of the war.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would it not help to have publication in the Ministry of Labour "Gazette" of those detailed statistics which, for the first time, have been suppressed in the current number?

Mr. Bevin: No, I do not propose to give the enemy the exact information that he desires.

UNEMPLOYED WORKERS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to state why there are over 600,000 persons registered as wholly unemployed at the Employment Exchanges when it is known works and factories are short-handed and many are working overtime; and whether

he will devise a scheme by which all registered unemployed can be made use of in the national effort?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Labour when he will have brought into the war and export industries all able-bodied unemployed men and women who are capable of being absorbed into these industries; and thereby satisfy the country that we are organised for total war?

Mr. Bevin: As the answer is somewhat lengthy I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to make a statement to the House in regard to the position of the unemployed, because there is much concern about it in the country?

Mr. Shinwell: Why is the figure of 600,000 registered unemployed allowed to appear in the newspapers, if it gives information to the enemy?

Mr. Bevin: The exact nature of the movement and disturbance in industry, published in the figures in regard to various trades, etc., is very valuable information to the enemy which I do not propose to give.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: How many unemployed has the right hon. Gentleman been able to draft in, to clear up debris?

Mr. Bevin: That is another question.

Mr. A. Bevan: If this information will enable the enemy to judge of the Government's war effort, what information are we to have to enable us to judge of it?

Mr. Tinker: Might I press for an answer to my request that the Minister should make a statement to the House?

Mr. Bevin: If the information I give in the circulated statement is not satisfactory, then, if my hon. Friend puts down another Question, I shall be happy to make a statement, but I think the information I am giving is very explanatory.
Following is the answer:
On 16th September last there were 613,671 persons registered as wholly unemployed, of whom 318,214 were men and 227,293 were women. It is impossible in the scope of a Parliamentary Question to give in detail the reasons why these persons are unemployed, but my hon. Friends will be aware that at all times


there must be a considerable number of workers passing from one job to another, and though every effort is made to move them without any intervening gap, it is unavoidable that many of them should be unemployed for short periods before they are fitted into new employment. The figure also includes a number of women who have registered for employment in war-time, although they are not normally in the industrial field. Furthermore, a proportion of these workers are the long-term unemployed for whom because of old age or other infirmities it is unlikely that further employment will be found. Panels of the local employment committees with the assistance of representatives of trade councils are reviewing the employability of all men who have been on the Register for one month or more.
In certain highly skilled occupations and in certain industries, there is an acute shortage of workers and the Employment Exchanges have been given, as one of their primary tasks, the duty of en-deavouring to fit into these occupations and industries workers who are unemployed in other industries, either immediately or after training, and considerable progress is being made in this direction, but I must secure a keener willingness on the part of employers and unions for developing schemes of training in the works. For this purpose, it is necessary to have the cooperation of all employers and unions in endeavouring to make use of substitute labour, even though this may necessitate a certain period of trial to allow the workers to get accustomed to the new work.
It will be appreciated that it is not easy to synchronise the contraction of peacetime industries precisely with the expansion of war-time industries. In so far as the contraction of peace-time industries is caused by the Limitation of Supplies Order, I have recently arranged with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply to ex amine jointly the operation of the Order with a view to the mitigation of any effects it may be having on employment.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that persons sent from Employment Exchanges to Government munitions factories for interviews to see whether they are suitable for employment there have to pay their own

fare both ways; and whether he will consider refunding this money, as it is hard on those who have had a long period of unemployment to be called upon to meet this cost when they are trying to fulfil the country's call?

Mr. Bevin: I will send my hon. Friend particulars of arrangements which have recently been made to meet the hardship to which he draws attention.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether there is any age limit beyond which unemployed persons cannot be compelled to accept employment on work of national importance at places a long distance from their homes?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, but age and other personal considerations would be taken into account before directions were issued to take work at a long distance from home. I would point out that the power to direct persons to perform specified services does not apply solely to unemployed persons but to all alike.

MUNITION WORKERS (AGE LIMIT).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether there is an age limit fixed for any grade of workers in the munitions works set up by the Government; and, if so, whether he will have this position examined, and will make the test one of fitness for the work irrespective of age?

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 7th May, 1940, to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. I am informed that the considerations governing employment in the establishments under the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are similar. If my hon. Friend has any specific case in mind and will communicate with me I will have inquiries made.

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is taking adequate steps to prevent the unregulated employment of young persons of school age; and whether he will issue a set of model by-laws whereby local authorities can regulate such labour, thus securing the advantages of additional output while guarding against deterioration of child health?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The employment of children of school age is already regulated by Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the by-laws made by local authorities under that Section. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the model by-laws which a great majority of local authorities have already adopted, and also a copy of a recent circular to local authorities.

Mr. Adams: Do I take it that the Minister is aware that there is still a considerable amount of unemployment of that character?

Mr. Morrison: It ought not to be so, because the Act gives the relevant authorities appropriate powers, and the Act has been called attention to in the recent circular.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the local authorities are implementing those by-laws?

Mr. Morrison: I am advised that the local authorities have adopted them. I cannot say whether they are fully implemented in each case, but I think the best remedy there is for local public opinion to take the matter up.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider holding an inquiry into the effects of continuous night employment upon the health and output of male young persons between 16 and 18 years of age?

Mr. Bevin: Special inquiries have already been instituted as to whether the more extensive night employment of youths between 16 and 18 under war conditions is producing ill-health or undue fatigue. The matter will continue to be closely watched and my hon. Friend may rest assured that if ill-effects are found to be resulting appropriate action will be taken.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister agree that continuous night employment of persons of that age must be detrimental to them?

Mr. Bevin: I have discouraged as far as I can night work for a youth of that age.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does the work of the Industrial Health Research Board continue, in spite of the fact that the Secretary has other duties?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Inquiries are being carried on continuously by the experts on the Industrial Health Research Board, and none of the work has been stopped, in spite of the extra duties which exist.

PRINTING TRADE (TRANSFERS TO MUNITIONS WORKS).

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of persons, male and female, who have been transferred from the printing industry to munitions up to the latest most convenient date?

Mr. Bevin: Up to the end of July last, 1,562 printing trade operatives were placed in other employment, mainly in engineering under a special scheme sponsored by the Joint Industrial Council of the Printing and Allied Trades for the transfer of available printing trade workers to munitions work. Later figures have not been collected, but I understand that the scheme is continuing to make satisfactory progress in most districts. My officers are in close touch with the Joint Industrial Council in regard to any difficulties which may arise.

Mr. Mander: Does not this transfer account for the fact that we are not able to get the OFFICIAL REPORT printed so that it is available for Members the next day?

Mr. Bevin: It may be that bullets to kill Germans are even more important than the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: What does my right hon. Friend mean by that statement? May I ask him whether he thinks that because he has become a member of the Government we need not trouble about our democratic institutions?

Mr. Bevin: No, I apologise. I probably slipped up by trying to be humorous.

SIR HENRY TIZZARD.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the nature of the work being carried out at the present time, on behalf of the Government, by Sir Henry Tizzard; and with which Department or Departments he is associated as scientific adviser?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): It would not be in the public interest to disclose the exact nature of Sir Henry Tizzard's duties. It can be stated, however, that he is at present engaged on work on behalf of both the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this distinguished scientist's abilities are being used in the best possible way in the interests of the State and are being fully employed?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. Sir Henry Tizzard is being employed in the best possible way in the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Thurtle: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no one scientific professor or expert has got the exclusive ear of the Prime Minister in regard to matters of scientific research?

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good many people do not feel satisfied that this Gentleman is being fully employed to the best advantage?

CENTRAL REGISTER.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons who have been included on the Central Register; how many have been placed in employment; and how many now remain on the Register?

Mr. Bevin: The number of persons enrolled on the Central Register at 30th September was 190,338. The number of persons placed through the Central Register is 9,001. On the last part of the Question, I would point out that the Central Register is not an employment finding agency; it is rather an inventory of the highly qualified personnel of the country, most of whom are already very busy. Placings made through the Register are generally transferences of people from work of lesser priority to work of greater priority. Accordingly, when persons are placed through the Central Register, their names are not removed from the Register.

Sir H. Williams: How many of those on the Register are gentlemen of skilled experience in engineering and science?

Mr. Bevin: I have not the statistics.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STAFF REPRESENTATIONS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider cancelling the rule preventing members of his staff from approaching Members of Parliament in connection with grievances that may arise in connection with the Ministry's work, as not being in the best interests of efficient working?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Civil servants have ample opportunity of bringing any grievances to the notice of the Department, either through the ordinary official channels, through the Civil Service Whitley machinery, or through their staff associations.

Mr. Gallacher: Although there are those opportunities for Civil servants, is there any special reason why Civil servants should be debarred from requesting a Member of Parliament to take up a particular case or grievance?

Mr. Bevin: I should think it a very objectionable practice, especially having regard to the fact that trade unions exist to which each man ought to go with his grievances.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that a member of any trade union ought not to approach a Member of Parliament with a grievance?

Mr. Bevin: No, but when a person is employed by the State and when he has proper machinery to which he can go, it is in the interests of the State for his grievance to go through that machinery, rather than that he should be able to get advantage by going to a particular Member of Parliament.

Mr. Ammon: Is there anything to prevent representatives of associations approaching a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly not. Representatives of associations, like those of any other trade union, have the right of approach.

Mr. McGovern: As a number of people have the dual capacity of trade union leader and Member of Parliament, does the Minister's answer mean that Civil servants cannot approach a trade union leader who is also a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Bevin: It is laid down that the case must be taken up through the proper machinery, and in every case I have had in which a Member of Parliament has written to me about a Civil servant, I have given the same reply. I think it is the correct practice.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to ask you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Even though an employé takes his case to a trade union, has he not a right to bring the matter to a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: No point of Order arises.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. As there appears to me to be a new point embodied in what the right hon. Gentleman said, I beg to give notice that I will raise the subject at the earliest available opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID DISTRESS (APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS).

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give consideration to the appointment of small committees of local persons to deal with applications for grants from the Unemployment Assistance Board from people in distress consequent upon air raids, in view of the fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction in some areas in connection with the administration and that local people would have a better opportunity of recognising improper applications that may be made?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the scheme for advances in respect of damage to essential furniture and clothing, etc., and not to the relief of distress generally. In the areas most affected by air raids, the Assistance Board are working under considerable difficulties but I will readily investigate any particular cases which my hon. Friend has in mind. I do not think any change is desirable.

Mr. Isaacs: Is it not a fact that these area boards delay so long in dealing with applications because they want to probe into the problem, and would not a com-

mittee of local people act more expeditiously? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that point?

Sir K. Wood: I have not received any general complaints on the matter, and I believe that the officers are acting expeditiously. That is why I asked that a particular case should be brought to my notice.

Sir H. Williams: I understand that complaints have been sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by people who have been trying to get compensation for 12 weeks?

Sir K. Wood: I will gladly investigate the matter.

Mr. G. Strauss: Are not the complaints widespread? In my constituency there are many dozens of cases, and there is necessity for a general inquiry.

Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman will send me any particular cases, I will have them investigated.

PUBLIC SHELTERS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he will recommend to, or instruct, local authorities in control of public shelters used for sleep at night to make available in. all such shelters supplies of antiseptic and medicinal tablets or pastilles for free distribution with a view to minimising ailments and infection?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The medical aid posts at the larger shelters will be equipped with appliances and drugs based on a schedule recommended by the committee over which Lord Horder presides. This schedule includes some medicinal tablets.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that whenever it is necessary application can be made for the distribution of these pastilles, and will my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government can freely distribute plugs for the ears, they can equally well freely distribute pastilles for the throat?

Mr. MacDonald: Whatever I am advised is necessary in the way of these provisions will be available for free distribution.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in fact any of these pastilles are being distributed now, in view of the very great risk of infection which exists in many of the shelters?

Mr. MacDonald: In some of them they are, but our organisation is not yet complete, although we are developing it as rapidly as we can.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman first make certain that every shelter has a first-aid post?

Mr. MacDonald: That is also a matter with which we are getting on as rapidly as we can, so far as the large shelters are concerned.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Will the distribution of these supplies apply to shelters throughout the country, and not to London only?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, it will apply to shelters throughout the country.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he will authorise the expenditure by local authorities for the provision, on the relay or some other economic system, of wireless apparatus in shelters holding a number of people?

Mr. H. Morrison: I see no objection to the use of wireless in shelters under proper control, but as at present advised I do not think there is a case for its provision at the public expense.

Mr. Strauss: As there is shelter only to a very small extent, would my right hon. Friend keep an open mind on this question and consider applications made by local authorities?

Captain Plugge: In view of the reduced service by the B.B.C., cannot some money from licences go towards providing sets?

Mr. H. Morrison: That is a question for the Minister of Information. In reply to the first Supplementary Question, I would say that I do try to keep an open mind on this question but that the problem is to keep an open purse.

EVACUATION.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that old age pensioners and other elderly people who

have agreed to be evacuated from London to institutions in safer areas, under assurances that they would not be deprived of their liberty, and would be treated with consideration, are in some cases being kept confined within the institutions, and that their food leaves much to be desired; and will he remedy this immediately?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not aware of any dissatisfaction, but I shall be glad to have any specific case or cases brought to my notice in order that they may be looked into.

Mr. Thurtle: When these cases, which are widespread, are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, will he act promptly, as otherwise the process of getting elderly people out of London will be seriously checked?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. If there are cases of persons whose liberty is being interfered with, we shall certainly send immediate instructions on the point.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Health whether he will amend his evacuation scheme to enable the old and infirm who are unable to find billets on their own account, to be evacuated from London?

Mr. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) and West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) yesterday.

Mr. Strauss: While I appreciate the difficulties referred to in that reply, can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the policy of the Government to get these people out of London as soon as possible?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. We are trying, as was indicated in the reply, to come to some special arrangement with regard to these people. I do not know how far we can extend this, because the difficulties are very considerable and are generally recognised. We shall, however, get them out as quickly as we can.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the magnitude of the problems involved in the evacuation, reception, and billeting of large numbers of people throughout the country, he will review the arrangements existing between the Ministry of Health and Regional Commissioners?

Mr. MacDonald: Some ten days ago I had a discussion on this matter with the Regional Commissioners and my Senior Regional Officers. I shall continue in touch with them on the important problems involved.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these people are really war casualties, suffering from shock, and that there is an absence of bedding, cooking utensils, and boots and shoes, and will he consider the further use of large houses as communal shelters, and, if necessary, appoint a welfare officer in the regional area to deal with these specific problems?

Mr. MacDonald: That involves a number of questions which I am not sure that I can keep in my mind. With regard to welfare officers, we are already appointing them for this purpose. With regard to the other matters, such as bedding, my Department has issued hundreds of thousands of blankets and mattresses for this purpose during the last few months. On all these questions we are in touch with the regional authorities, although I appreciate that there is a good deal that we can still do to improve the situation.

Mr. Lindsay: Am I to understand that welfare officers have been appointed in the Home Counties and elsewhere?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, in a number of regions. It is our policy to have these welfare officers appointed wherever the problem arises.

TETANUS (INOCULATION).

Dr. A. V. Hill: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the successful results of the new inoculation of the Army against tetanus, it will now be possible to offer the same protection to the police, the fire services, and air-raid precaution workers in general?

Mr. H. Morrison: This matter was carefully considered by my Department and the Ministry of Health some time ago, and the conclusion was reached that, for a variety of reasons, special measures of advance immunization against tetanus should not be extended to the services mentioned. I am advised that the normal method of inoculation after a person becomes a casualty affords an adequate safeguard against any risk of tetanus.

LONDON AUXILIARY AMBULANCE SERVICE.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health if he will have an inspection made of the stations of the London Auxiliary Ambulance Service, especially Station 56, with a view to the provision of adequate sanitation, heating, cooking and, where necessary, sleeping accommodation before the winter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: An inspection of these stations is already proceeding and has included Station 56. The points to which the hon. Member refers are receiving attention during the inspections and will be carefully reviewed as the reports are received.

BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether, as he has the particulars of the 9,000 members of the British Union of Fascists in this country before the war, he can now say how many of these were interned; how many of the interned were released before 7th October, 1940; how many since; and how many besides Sir Oswald Mosley remain in confinement?

Mr. H. Morrison: The total number of persons who have been detained under Defence Regulation 18B because of their association with the British Union is about 700. Most of them have appealed to the Advisory Committee, and the Committee are examining the individual cases as rapidly as possible. The number as yet released is about 100, of whom 78 were released before 7th October.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Home Secretary aware that a considerable number of these people who may have been attracted by the attractive programme of this party are not really Fascists in intention; and cannot he speed up the consideration of their applications for a hearing, as some of them have pleaded for months for a hearing, and some young women especially who I do not believe had any evil intentions towards the State are lying in prison?

Mr. Morrison: I have always thought, and I have learned increasingly since I have been at the Home Office, that the members of this organisation are a very


varied collection of people. I appreciate that point, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that no undue delay will be caused. I am looking into the matter very carefully to see that the cases of these people, in common with those of all other internees, are dealt with as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: How many of these 700 cases have actually been dealt with at the present time by the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Morrison: I answered that question when I said that the number released is 100.

Miss Rathbone: How many have been continued in detention, which is a different question from that relating to those who have been released?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give the figure, but there are some additional cases outstanding from the Advisory Committee, and certain further inquiries have to be made before I can reach a decision, but I will reach a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: I did not ask how many had been released, but how many cases had been dealt with.

DÉBRIS, LONDON (CLEARANCE).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether any steps have yet been taken to increase the military assistance for clearing up the débris in London?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. Contingents of the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps, now totalling about 6,800 men, have already been drafted into the London Region for work on the clearance of débris; and the military authorities have undertaken that a further 3,200 will be made available for this work in the immediate future. These figures do not take into account contingents of skilled men which the Army have put at the disposal of the civil authorities for certain specialist work in connection with the repair of damage caused by air raids.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will my right lion Friend give consideration to getting the men at work clearing up the débris as early as possible, especially having regard to some of the bombed areas?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I appreciate the importance of my hon. Friend's point.

Sir William Davison: Who is responsible for billeting these soldiers? Is it the military or the local authorities, as there seems to be some misunderstanding?

Mr. Morrison: The Army themselves, I understand, are responsible.

Major Milner: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the efforts of the military are interfered with owing to the lack of transport, and will he look into that?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is one of the elements of the difficulties which is engaging attention.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these 10,000 men in all will prove sufficient, and, if not, is he taking any steps at all to recruit unemployed miners, in South Wales particularly, for work for which they are eminently suitable?

Mr. Morrison: That is being considered, but there are other considerations, including billeting, which is a very serious difficulty in London, that must be taken into account.

RAILWAY WORKERS (HOME GUARD).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet able to give an answer to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Rotherham some time ago, in reference to a complaint that a number of railwaymen had been refused membership of the Home Guard by a railway company owing to a secret report of the police; and will he give the necessary instructions that a copy of such report be given to the men concerned or to the secretary of the trade union to which the men belong?

Mr. H. Morrison: If the police know that an applicant for enrolment in the Home Guard has a criminal record or has hostile associations which create doubt as to his loyalty, it is right that they should give this information to the military auhorities, who are responsible for the enrolment of applicants, and I could not agree that the police should be required to make public any such information. As regards the cases to which my hon. Friend refers, I have made full inquiries, and find that while a mistake was made, which I much regret, there is, from the police point of view, no objection to the enrolment of the men in question.

Mr. Dobbie: Will instructions be given to the police, or to the railway company concerned, to send that information to the man, and give him the opportunity that other employés of the company have?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly consider that point.

LICENSING HOURS (EVACUATION AREAS, SUNDAYS).

Captain Plugge: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider advancing the licensing hours in evacuation areas on Sundays to enable the public to make use of public houses before the start of the night air raids?

Mr. H. Morrison: Licensing hours are fixed within the limits prescribed by Statute by the licensing justices, after consideration of the needs of their districts. I have no power to vary the hours, and, on my present information, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for amending the law so as to give effect to my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal.

DETENTIONS.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary why Siegfried Granaat, a Dutch diamond merchant and an anti-Nazi, who fled from Holland, has been interned in Pentonville Prison?

Mr. H. Morrison: The detention of Mr. Granaat was ordered on security grounds. I am referring this case to the appropriate Advisory Committee.

Mr. Wedgwood: How long is it likely to be before the case is heard by the appropriate committee?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say, but I do not think there will be any undue delay. It must, of course, take its turn with other cases.

Mr. McGovern: Could the Home Secretary not speed up all these cases of well known anti-Nazis? Is it not a scandalous thing that anti-Nazis should be kept in prison?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter to which I have given attention, and steps have already been taken to improve the organisation.

Sir P. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend not increase the number of committees, if possible?

Mr. Morrison: That has already been done, but I will certainly give the matter further consideration?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary why Prince von Stahremberg is allowed to serve the Allied cause, in view of the fact that General Toreau, who is anxious to serve, is still detained; and whether he will consider releasing him?

Mr. Morrison: So far as this Question relates to Prince von Stahremberg, who came to this country with the Free French Forces, it is not a matter for me. General Torcom—to whom I presume my hon. Friend refers—is detained on security grounds, and on the information before me I should not be justified in authorising his immediate release, but his case is to be referred for further consideration to the appropriate Advisory Committee.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that it seems monstrously unfair to the public mind that a man with the record of Prince von Stahremberg should be free while the general, whose record compares so very favourably with Prince von Stahremberg's, is languishing in gaol, with no charge brought against him?

Mr. Morrison: I have already said that the case of Prince von Stahremberg is not my business, and I will not be drawn into any discussion about him. My responsibility is with regard to General Torcom. I have asked the Advisory Committee to consider his case, and I will carry out my responsibility when I get that committee's report.

Mr. Sorensen: When is that likely to be?

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with the Questions.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that amongst 140 women prisoners recently detained at Holloway Prison are many detained under Section 18B; that there are only two w.c.'s available for their use; and whether he will take steps to put an end to such conditions, which would not be


right for convicted prisoners, let alone for persons detained for preventative rather than punitive reasons?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. There are 13 w.c.'s in those wings of the prison in which women detained under Defence Regulation 18B are accommodated. There are also additional w.c.'s in the exercise grounds, workshop and laundry. I know of no grounds for the suggestion that the accommodation is inadequate.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that certain damage has been done to those premises? If I bring the people who complain about it to the Home Office, will they be able to see a responsible official, to get the matter put right?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that those people can be brought to the Home Office, but I will consider any points that my hon. Friend brings to my notice. I only hope that those points will be more accurate than the statements made in the Question.

Major Cazalet: Has my right hon. Friend not received unsatisfactory reports on this prison? Will he send someone down to investigate?

Mr. Morrison: This prison has often been investigated. There are problems there, and we are doing our best to solve them.

AIR-RAID DAMAGE (FURNITURE).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether a person whose house has been ruined as a result of enemy action and who sees his furniture amongst the debris, is entitled to do his best to salvage pieces; that much of this furniture when salvaged by a demolition squad remains on the pavement for days and seriously deteriorates; and whether he can look into the whole matter with a view to making better arrangements?

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that furniture rescued from bombed houses is often left stacked outside for days without any protection from the weather; and what arrangements are being made in such cases, either for storing or removal, in

view of the fact that much salvage effort on the part of the air-raid precautions workers is thereby being wasted?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have been asked to reply. As regards access to damaged houses, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security that, provided collapse of the structure is not likely to occur, and that attempts at salvage do not hamper the Civil Defence services, a person whose house has been damaged by air raids is at liberty to remove his furniture from the debris, and to take it away. As regards the remaining parts of the Questions, the subsequent disposal of furniture is at present governed in certain respects by the instructions given to local authorities by the Ministry of Home Security. Under these some of the local authorities have made good arrangements for the removal or storage of furniture. Different aspects of the matter affect a number of other Departments, and, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris) on 5th November, it is now under urgent consideration by a joint committee of the Departments concerned.

Sir T. Moore: Can a man be charged under the existing law with looting if he tries to remove his furniture from premises?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not see how he could if it was his own furniture. The point of the answer is in the danger to him if the building is unsafe.

Mr. Thorne: Has the Minister come to any decision with regard to houses made uninhabitable?

Mr. MacDonald: That is another question.

DEMOLITION.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that, inasmuch as demolition is a highly specialised undertaking, at least one expert worker is in control of each gang working in London?

Mr. H. Morrison: If by "demolition" my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the work of demolishing a building after the rescue parties have removed from it and after casualties have been extricated, I


would explain that the work is usually assigned to specialist contractors, whose employés may be presumed to have the requisite technical experience. If my hon. and gallant Friend has evidence to the contrary, I should be glad to receive particulars.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that one of the most distinguished buildings in the City of London suffered more damage from the well-meaning efforts of demolition squads than from the bombs? I will give him particulars.

Mr. Morrison: I was not aware of that, but if my hon. and gallant Friend can give me particulars, I will look into them.

PROPAGANDA, BELFAST.

Dr. Little: asked the Rome Secretary whether, in view of the circulation among war workers in Belfast of seditious and subversive literature which derides Ulster's British connection, with the object of lessening their war effort in production, he will adopt the strongest possible measure to see that such propaganda is brought to an end at once?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have not seen the publication to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am making inquiries.

Dr. Little: I sent a copy of the publication to the Minister of Supply, and I understood that he had forwarded it to my right hon. Friend. It is a serious matter, and cannot be dealt with in that off-hand way.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will know that there are certain delays nowadays. If he sent it to the Minister of Supply and it had to be forwarded, that may account for the fact that I have not yet had it. If it is in the Home Office, I will certainly look at it.

AIR-RAID DAMAGE (RE-BUILDING).

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Prime Minister what action the Government propose to take in regard to the approach made to them by the Common Council of the City of London with a view to the appointment of an advisory committee with the authorities concerned in rebuilding and replanning of the areas affected by enemy air raids?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave directions that the communication referred to should be forwarded to the Minister of Works and Public Buildings and it is now having the consideration of my Noble Friend.

Mr. E. Harvey: Is it not important that the whole question of reconstruction should have Cabinet consideration?

Mr. Attlee: The matter is being referred, first of all, to the Minister of Works and Public Buildings.

ITALIANS (INTERNMENT).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary how many Italian Fascists were interned when Italy declared war on this country and how many have since been released; how many Italian anti-Fascists were interned at the same time and how many still remain in prison; whether Raffaelo Vineis, in particular, is still in prison; and whether he will examine the police report on this man in order to review the action of the London police?

Mr. H. Morrison: On the outbreak of war with Italy the internment of some 4,200 Italians was affected. As there had been no such classification of the Italian population, as had been undertaken in the case of the Germans and Austrians, it is not possible to state how many of the persons interned were Fascists and how many anti-Fascists, but there was evidence that at least some 700 of them were or had been members of the Italian Fascist Party. Some 410 Italian internees have since been released. The case of Raffaelo Vineis, who is still interned, is being referred to the Advisory Committee set up in pursuance of Section C of the White Paper. I know of no police report relating to the question of his internment, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any complaint which he has in mind I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. Wedgwood: Am I to understand that these people are not interned by the police on their own knowledge of the facts? How many of those 400-odd who have been released were released because they were anti-Fascists, and how many because they were rich?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give the numbers in the first place. In the second place, I can assure the House that these


matters are dealt with on merit. If my right hon. Friend is suggesting that I, in dealing with these cases, am influenced by whether people are rich or not, it is a suggestion that I repudiate. On the other point, I cannot give the information.

Mr. Wedgwood: Can the Home Secretary answer the Question on the Paper? How many of those Italians who have been released are anti-Fascists, and how many are Fascists? Can he give any other explanation of the release of the Fascists?

Mr. Morrison: These cases are dealt with on their merits, and after the most careful consideration; but, in view of the fact that there was no precise classification of political opinions when the people were interned, I am not in a position to give that information.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Wedgwood: I must have an answer to my Question. [Interruption.] On a point of Order. I have put down a Question about the release of these people, and am I not entitled to ask on what grounds they are released except on account of their views?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend has the impression that people are interned or not interned according to their political opinions entirely. That is not so. The fundamental question is the security of the State. On that matter, political opinions may be a consideration, but they are not necessarily the determining factor which settles internment.

Miss Ward: May I ask a Supplementary Question?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Miss Ward: The right hon. Gentleman has put three Supplementary Questions, and I have not put one at all.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS DEPARTMENT, HOME OFFICE.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Air-Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office is inaccessible by telephone throughout the period of an air-raid warning, even when no aircraft are overhead; and whether he will give directions to remedy this?

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member's statement is true only as regards one of the four buildings occupied by the Ministry of Home Security. In that building the telephone room is in an exposed position on the top floor: there is no basement for shelter and the staff cannot safely continue at work after an alert. Arrangements are in progress for housing them elsewhere, but in the meantime, special arrangements have been made to secure attention to telephone inquiries.

AIR-RAID DEATHS (IDENTIFICATION).

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulty in obtaining evidence of definite identity of persons killed and badly mutilated in the air raids; and whether, as the procedure of presumption of death in the High Courts is expensive, he will give consideration to some simplified and less expensive method of issuing certificates?

Mr. H. Morrison: My attention has been drawn to the difficulty which the hon. Member mentions, and the question of devising a simple procedure to meet it is at present under consideration.

AIR-RAID WARDENS (WINTER CLOTHING).

Mr. Burke: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to supply waterproof capes for air-raid wardens or to authorise their purchase by local authorities, because the use of the light oilskin jackets from the anti-gas equipment, as suggested in Home Office Circular 253/40, is undesirable, being likely to imperil the efficiency of the anti-gas services and insufficient protection for wardens during long periods of bad weather?

Mr. Emery: asked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take to provide adequate winter clothing for all personnel of the air-raid precautions services?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have this matter under review and hope to be in a position to make a further statement shortly.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that this matter was put to his Department at the beginning of the severe winter of last year, and that it is really necessary that these people should have adequate protection during the coming winter?

Mr. Morrison: I have given the matter very urgent attention, and I hope to make a statement very shortly; indeed, I will try to do so this week.

SHELTERS, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. Salt: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there is still a considerable shortage of shelters in Birmingham which can only be remedied by an increase in the supply of cement, and will he, in consultation with the Minister of Supply, speed the delivery of this commodity in view of the dangers to those living in this vulnerable area?

Mr. H. Morrson: I am informed by the Regional Commissioner that he has devoted to the needs of Birmingham as large a proportion as can be justified of the amount of cement which I have been able to place at his disposal from the Departmental quota.

Mr. Salt: Cannot the Minister urge the Cement Board to do something, in view of the great shortage in Birmingham of requisite shelter?

Mr. Morrison: I will do my best, but unfortunately there are shortages generally.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a fact that the cause of it is bad representation by the Birmingham Members?

BOMBED DWELLINGS (URGENT REPAIRS).

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether he will authorise occupiers or landlords of bombed dwellings to spend some small sum, say £5 or £10, on urgent repairs, such as blocking broken windows or covering roofs pending sanction of proper repairs by the local authorities, since, if the weather be adverse, far greater damage may be caused by the inevitable delay in obtaining permission to proceed with repairs?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am afraid that the arrangement suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would only lead to greater competition for the services of local builders, and would therefore be likely to lead to a net delay in the work being done. Under the Housing (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, local authorities are empowered to finance repairs which they are satisfied are necessary and which have been carried out under arrangements made by them or with their prior

approval. In such cases the cost forms a charge on the property, but no payment is required from the owner until after the war. Unless, therefore, an owner is prepared to meet the cost of repairs himself he should consult the local authority before taking action. Such consultation should not involve any appreciable or avoidable delay.

Sir J. Lucas: Cannot men be authorised to buy a bit of wood, cardboard or material for temporary repairs right away? It is all very well to say that delay does not matter, but in bad weather it does matter.

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think there is any delay if a person gets in touch with his local authority at once. The whole of the building labour required is employed steadily on this work, and local authorities must be the effective co-ordinating bodies.

Sir J. Lucas: Cannot a man pay for the material himself and do the work himself and get the money back later after he has done his quick repair?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that would lead to increased competition for this labour and material and in the long run would cause greater delay.

Mr. Thorne: There are thousands of damaged windows in London, particularly in the East End. Cannot the Minister advise people as to the best way to get glass to replace them?

Mr. MacDonald: It is not our policy to replace the glass in these windows under present conditions. There are substitutes which are being used and which are much more effective for short-term purposes, and they are nearly or equally as effective in keeping out wind and rain.

Mr. Thorne: But many people have to board up their windows and have only artificial light for day as well as night.

Mr. MacDonald: There are adequate supplies of substitutes which admit light.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Could not the Minister expedite the replacing of roofs, because furniture inside damaged houses is rapidly deteriorating through the weather?

Mr. MacDonald: Certainly, Sir. We are doing all we can, and we appreciate


that the question of roofing is as important as any. But the real trouble in London is the shortage of skilled labour, and we are taking every step possible to increase the supply.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister aware that local authorities are not carrying out this work expeditiously and that it is not entirely necessary to have skilled labour to board up windows? Will he make arrangements whereby owners who can provide for themselves, as they often can, can be reimbursed afterwards by the local authorities?

Mr. MacDonald: That is the position in effect now where owners are ready to bear the cost themselves in the first instance.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that where small householders have to board up their windows with opaque material they are subjected to heavy costs for artificial light which, in many cases, they are unable to bear? Will he see that they are provided with the less opaque material which is now being used?

Mr. MacDonald: The question of light is a very difficult one. The ideal, of course, would be to put the glass back into all these windows—and there are very adequate supplies of glass—but the objections while the bombardment continues are perfectly obvious. The authorities concerned have done their best to provide the best substitutes, from the point of view of lighting as well as other considerations, but admittedly they are not as satisfactory as glass.

FACTORY INSPECTION.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of changes in management, changes in personnel, construction and adaptation of factories, relaxation of regulations, and so forth, all making the work of factory inspection more difficult, he is to appoint additional factory inspectors, and to take special measures to train them in their duties?

Mr. Bevin: The number of inspectors has been increased since the commencement of the war, and some more additional appointments are about to be made. Special attention to the training

of new entrants is given by the chief inspector and his staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

INOCULATION.

Dr. Hill: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of possible epidemics of typhoid and paratyphoid, means and material are available for widespread inoculation in regions likely to be affected; and whether, in view of the fact that the commonest source of such infection is from workers employed in connection with food and water supplies, he will make provision for all such workers to be protected without delay?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Means and material are available for extensive inoculation of the population of particular localities if they should be placed at special risk. I have looked into the particular suggestion in the second part of the Question and I am advised that the action suggested would not have the effect of protecting the consumer against infection. I have just sent a circular to local authorities drawing their attention to certain other measures which would reduce risks of infection, and am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this circular.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May we be assured that there will be no compulsory inoculation?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does that include the inoculation of men who are exploring wells and so on, which was the basis of the Croydon infection epidemic? Men working at the bottoms of these wells do require this protection.

Mr. MacDonald: Those workers are covered by the answer which I have given.

Captain Elliston: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the protection of families evacuated to reception areas where the purity of the milk and water supplies cannot be guaranteed?

Mr. MacDonald: We have provisions for inoculation in cases where there may be special necessity.

Sir P. Harris: Has it been made clear that this inoculation is not compulsory?

Mr. MacDonald: I have just answered that Question.

Captain Vyvyan Adams: Will my right hon. Friend not shrink from compulsion?

WATER SUPPLY, TIMSBURY.

Mrs. Tate: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the village of Timsbury in Somerset, with a population of over 1,000, was practically waterless for two months in the summer and suffered a shortage for four months; and whether it is proposed to bring pressure to bear on the Clutton Rural District Council to enlarge the reservoir before next summer?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am in communication with the rural district council and will write to my hon. Friend when my inquiries are completed.

SCIENTIFIC FOOD COMMITTEE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Lord Privy Seal the membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition; to what extent its advice is being taken; and whether he will give an assurance that vested interests will not be allowed to interfere with the application of scientific discoveries?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend is, no doubt, referring to the Scientific Food Committee, presided over by the President of the Royal Society, Sir William Bragg, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the membership of this committee. A number of recommendations on a variety of subjects connected with food have been put forward by the committee. It is not possible within the scope of a Parliamentary answer to enumerate the subjects on which their advice is being taken. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

The names of the remaining members of the Committee are:

Sir Alan Anderson, G.B.E.
Professor A. W. Ashby.
Professor E. P. Cathcart, C.B.E., F.R.S.
Mr. Henry Clay.
Professor F. L. Engledow, C.M.G., F.R.S.
Mr. W. Gavin, C.B.E.
Sir Edward Mellanby, M.D., F.R.S.
Sir John Boyd On, F.R.S.
Professor J. A. Scott-Watson.
Professor D. S. M. Watson, F.R.S. (Secretary).

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance of agriculture as a vital industry to this country, and the need of it being placed on a productive basis to all those concerned in it, a preliminary statement can now be made to give assurance to agriculture as to the Government's long-term policy to deal with its many difficulties?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the Debate on 22nd October.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the agricultural industry that it is quite impossible to get production on to a reasonable basis without a long-term policy?

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government have not implemented a single promise that they have made to the agricultural community?

Mr. Speaker: rose

Mr. De la Bère: May I have an answer to my Question? Are we to understand by that silence that nothing further is intended?

REQUISITE SCHEME.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give full details of the facilities available under the Agricultural Requisite Scheme set up by the Act of 1940, indicating what requisites and financial aid can be had, from whom, and in what cases reference to the Ministry is necessary?

Mr. Hudson: The agricultural requisites which may be provided under the scheme include seeds, fertilisers, machinery and implements, feeding-stuffs, tractor fuel, coke and coal, machinery overhauls, silos, tripods for harvesting, mole drainage, ditching, and contractors' services for ploughing, cultivating, harvesting or threshing. Applications for assistance under the scheme are made to County War Agricultural Executive Committees, and if they are approved, the committees order the requisites. The committees


refer to the Ministry any applications which they consider doubtful or exceed the sum of £100. I am sending the hon. Member copies of two leaflets describing the scheme, which have been widely circulated.

Major Milner: Is the Minister aware that these facilities are not at all generally known, and will he give full publicity to them; and can he tell me what advantage is being taken of them to date?

Mr. Hudson: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member's Question will help to give publicity to these facilities. In the past they have not been taken full advantage of in the way that I should like, but we have relaxed several of the conditions materially in the course of the last week or two, and the amended scheme will, I hope, be taken much greater advantage of in the future.

OLD AGE AND SPINSTERS' PENSIONS.

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the plight of applicants for old age and spinsters' pensions who qualified for pensions as far back as July last, but who have not yet received any payment; and whether he proposes to take any steps to expedite the procedure whereby applications for such pensions can be dealt with more promptly?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am satisfied that there is no delay in deciding claims for pension when the necessary evidence of title has been furnished by or on behalf of the claimant. Of the 254,000 claims to old age pension under the 1940 Act received in England before 1st July last, more than 250,000 have already been decided, the remainder being cases which on the information at present available would have to be rejected, but in which inquiries are being made in order to see whether the statutory conditions for the award of pension can be satisfied. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular cases in mind, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have details.

Major Procter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that owing to delay in answering letters, considerable delays do actually occur, and that these are causing very great hardships to the recipients of old age and spinsters' pensions?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have particulars of these cases, I will have them looked into.

ARMED FORCES (NEUROSIS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that psychiatrists employed as civilians in mental hospitals are not allowed to treat patients in the same hospitals who are members of His Majesty's Forces, and that neurosis cases arising in the Forces are therefore, sometimes, neglected; and will he arrange with the Service Departments to remove this anomaly?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have no knowledge of the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers, which seem to be contrary to my own information. If he will furnish me with instances, I will go further into the matter.

ARMED FORCES PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of pensions claims resulting from the last war which went to the appeal tribunal; and the number of such appeals which were successful?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Out of 428,000 cases whose original claim to pension on the ground of disablement attributable to or aggravated by war service was rejected by the Ministry, 111,000, or one in four, appealed to the tribunal, and in 34,000 cases, or 8 per cent. of the rejections, the appeal was successful.

Major Milner: Does not the very large proportion of successful appeals indicate the absolute necessity for appeal tribunals to be instituted in connection with claims arising out of the present war?

Sir W. Womersley: These figures relate to the last war and cover a period of 20 odd years. The hon. and gallant Member, as a member of my Advisory Committee, knows that I am all in favour of tribunals being set up as and when it is possible to do so. It is not possible to do so at the moment, but I have already stated in the House that when the time arrives that these tribunals can be set up, they will be set up.

Major Milner: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is not possible to set them up now?

Sir W. Womersley: It would take longer than I am allowed in an answer to a Supplementary Question to state that. My hon. and gallant Friend can read my previous statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the letters, dated 25th August, 18th September and 5th October, from the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association; were the letters acknowledged; and were replies sent later to the organisation?

Sir W. Womersley: The correspondence referred to, which, I understand, raises a large number of matters of detail, is in the hands of my staff in the North-West of England, and as the Question was only put down yesterday, it has not been possible in the time to give a categorical answer. I can assure the hon. Member that a reply will be sent as soon as possible, and he will be informed.

INDIA (MR. JAHARWAL NEHRU).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India what information he can give the House respecting the trial and sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mr. Jaharwal Nehru?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Mr. Nehru was prosecuted under the Defence of India Rules. He was charged, as I understand, with the delivery of speeches during the early part of October of a character likely to prejudice recruitment, to stir up disaffection and feelings of enmity between different classes of His Majesty's subjects and to influence the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war. I have not yet received a full report, but I have seen Press messages to the effect that he was found guilty and sentenced to four years' imprisonment in the aggregate.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that not only is this sentence harsh and extreme, and will be interpreted as such, but further that it has very grave political and social repercussions, in India, in this country and in America? In consideration of its most

serious nature, will he arrange for a Debate at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Amery: That is not for me to settle.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the probable effect of the sentence on Mr. Nehru, he will reconsider the whole matter, and whether he does not think that this sentence, in view of what has happened in India, is not likely to make any beneficial contribution to the war effort?

Mr. Amery: I have telegraphed the Viceroy for full information as to this case, but obviously not on a question of altering the whole of the Constitutional problem because a particular individual has been tried by the courts.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that Mr. Nehru expressed himself at the beginning of the war as favourable to Britain's cause, and is it not a reflection on the policy of His Majesty's Government that he should have been driven to these extremes?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the Constitutional question at Question Time.

Mr. Sorensen: Cannot we discuss this matter in any way? I submit that Mr. Nehru is an individual of prominence in India.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very great seriousness of this matter, is it not possible to press for a discussion on it on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: That can be done at the proper time.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could I have your guidance and advice on the following matter? I have a Question on the Order Paper, No. 101, and it has been on the Paper for the last fortnight. It is in regard to the reconstruction of the Home Guard. Yesterday my hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War anticipated my Question by one day when he made his statement. Now, Sir, Question Time is almost the one democratic privilege left to us Members of Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and had I known that that statement was to have been made yesterday, I


would have withdrawn my Question and substituted another. As our time is so restricted now, I would like your advice as to what are the responsibilities of Ministers in the matter of permitting Members to ask as many Questions as possible?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member will have a little patience, I think a statement is being made shortly on that subject.

Mr. Bellenger: I notice that the practice is growing of Ministers getting up, without being asked a Question, to make a statement. Is that in accordance with the customs of the House?

Mr. Bevan: Is it not more important to have a statement from a Minister as expeditiously as possible, especially in view of our present congested position?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for saying what I should have said myself.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the future Business of the House?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The Business to be considered when the House meets again is as follows:
First Sitting Day: The Second Reading of the Securities (Validation) Bill [Lords]; Report stage of outstanding Supplementary Estimates; Motion to approve the Newhaven (Sussex) Prohibitory Order. Afterwards the Adjournment of the House will be moved in order to debate the Contributions made by India, Burma and the Colonies to the War Effort. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India and Burma and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will make statements at the beginning of the Debate.
Second Sitting Day: Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on the Railways Agreement and Railway Fares.
Third Sitting Day: Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on the Home Guard.

Earl Winterton: Since I, on behalf of several of my hon. Friends, asked for

the Debate on the Contributions of India and the Colonial Empire to the War Effort, may I ask two questions? After the statements made by the Ministers, does my right hon. Friend propose to espy strangers? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider the point that those of us who wish to raise this question desire to deal with it in its widest aspect, both from the point of view of the economic contribution and defence? Would it not be more satisfactory that those hon. Members who were successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye and wished to raise these points should do so, and that then the Government might make a comprehensive answer on all these big questions, in view of the fact that the matter does not concern only India and the Colonies, but deals with the whole question of Imperial Defence?

The Prime Minister: This is no new situation with regard to procedure that has developed. Usually, Ministers open the Debate with a statement when a topic with which they are concerned is raised, and the House usually likes to hear what they have to say. Ministers then have the opportunity of replying if they think it necessary.

Earl Winterton: I have had some private conversations through the usual channels, and I understand that it is proposed, in view of the vast importance of this question, to espy strangers after the statements have been made.

The Prime Minister: We might have some discussions about that through the usual channels, but it would be much better that the Debate should be open, only, of course, hon. Members will remember that we have always to bear in mind that others besides ourselves are our audience.

Mr. Bevan: In announcing the Business, the Prime Minister made no reference to the Bill to implement the promise he made yesterday about supplementary old age pensions. In view of the fact that the promise was made and broadcast to the country, is it not highly undesirable that there should be any delay between the promise and the introduction of the Bill? May we have the Bill as quickly as possible?

The Prime Minister: There may be an interval of time, but there will be no delay.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that recently we have had two Debates on the conduct of the war and at the end of those Debates no Member of the Government answered any of the questions raised by various hon. Members, may I ask whether it would not be possible to arrange that Ministers should reply to such points as they can at the end of Debates?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the Government exist by the favour of the House and the support of the House, and the Government are usually given the option as to how they will state their case. If the Government felt it was necessary that there should be a reply and if it was the general desire of Members before some critical Division that there should be a reply, a reply would certainly be forthcoming, but I do not think that in these times it is a good thing for there to be too many Ministerial pronouncements, especially on very delicate matters of military policy, made simply on the spur of debate.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Prime Minister realise that the present arrangement gives the impression that he is the only person who knows what is the policy of the Government? Would it not be better for somebody else to reply sometimes?

Sir P. Harris: Will the Prime Minister see that some responsible Minister is always present to take note of all important points made in a Debate?

The Prime Minister: I understand that in the Debates in question, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal were present. They are highly responsible Ministers and know every detail of the policy of the Government; they were perfectly free to reply had they considered that the situation warranted it.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether the Debate on India will include the political aspect as well as the military aspect, particularly in view of the recent arrest of Mr. Nehru?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Debate will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment, with all the usual latitude.

DETENTION OF A MEMBER.

Captain W. T. Shaw: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will explain the delay in the publication of the Report of the Committee of Privileges which dealt with the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay)?

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, there has been no avoidable delay in the publication of the report referred to. The Committee decided to publish their report and the minutes of evidence taken before them simultaneously, instead of publishing the report and then, after a considerable interval, the evidence. This involved holding back the report until the evidence could be passed for the Press. It is expected that publication will take place on or about the 14th of this month. The report was prepared on 9th October, and the interval will be, therefore, rather over a month. In similar circumstances in 1938 the report of the Official Secrets Act Committee was agreed to by the Committee on 5th August, but not published until 18th October. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member will see that the interval in the present case is much shorter.

Captain Shaw: Was not the House in Recess when the report to which you refer was made?

Mr. Speaker: That does not affect the printing.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (PUBLICATION).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have any information to give the House in connection with the matter which I raised yesterday, namely, the delay which is at present taking place in the publication of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the proceedings of this House and the inconvenience which is being caused thereby to Members of this House an dto the public?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have had further opportunities of making more inquiries into this matter. It appears to me that the reason for the delay is the excessive length of the time that the works cannot be used. Hon. Members must realise that if the House requires to have the REPORT, for certain, at a much earlier hour, the


Government will have to acquire fresh premises for the printers. Whether they are prepared to do that or not, I could not say, but that is the position.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: On that point, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been informed by an hon. Member of this House that he could furnish half a dozen printers in London at the present time who could have this REPORT ready within a few hours of the termination of the sittings of the House. In connection with Tuesday's proceedings, the REPORT was not available in the Vote Office until four o'clock yesterday afternoon. I submit to you, Sir, and to the Prime Minister and the Government, that this is a matter of extreme inconvenience, not only to hon. Members who attend here from day to day, but also to other hon. Members who are precluded from attending.

Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to agree that that is the case and that there may be inconvenience to Members, and I am also prepared to agree that a great many printers could bring out the REPORT very much more quickly, but they would not do so in premises such as those occupied by the present printers. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Thurtle: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware that there is a certain number of Members in tins House who do not wish to make mountains out of molehills, and who are prepared, in view of the exigencies of the war, to submit to a certain amount of inconvenience?

Mr. Isaacs: Is the House aware that the printers work right up to the last possible moment in the production of this REPORT; that they are working in an exceedingly vulnerable area and a place which has frequently been damaged; that quite a number of printers in London have already been smashed up and that there is no kind of guarantee that any printers will be exempt? Surely, the safety of the men who are doing the job should be put against any slight inconvenience which may have been caused.

Mr. Bevan: I submit that this is not a case of the House of Commons being unreasonable. On the other hand, I understand that the reason why the REPORT is not printed earlier is because there are not adequate premises at the

disposal of the printers. Is it not possible to get more suitable and safer premises in which to produce the OFFICIAL REPORT? Must the privileges of this House always be the first to be invaded, when any inconvenience is caused anywhere? We ought to put up with inconvenience if it is absolutely necessary, but only if it is absolutely necessary. The business of this House should be conducted as efficiently as possible if we, as Members, are to do our job properly.

Sir W. Davison: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that to-day even the half-sheets which Members send to the local Press and to people interested—as for example those dealing with the question of prisoners of war raised on Tuesday last—are not yet available and that newspapers in various localities will not therefore be able to get them?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I should like to call attention to another aspect of this matter. While the exigencies caused by present circumstances may keep Members waiting a certain time for their copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think it is fair to remind hon. Members that the postal authorities have let us down very badly and that letters which normally should be delivered in 12 hours or at most 24 hours are now five days on the way.

The Prime Minister: As far as the matter rests in the responsibility of the Government, I will concern myself in it and consider whether other premises can be obtained in a reasonable time which will meet the requirements of the House.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY, ESTIMATES, 1940.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £2,500 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and grants in aid of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the British Association for International Understanding.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): It will probably be convenient to the Committee if I say a few words about the grants-in-aid which are dealt with in this Vote. This, as the Committee will observe, is by far the smallest Vote which is to come under consideration to-day, but it involves an important point. I shall occupy few moments in telling the Committee something about the work of this Association. It was formed in March last year with the object of assisting the British people to understand international affairs. It is the only incorporated organisation, registered as a scientific society, which exists for the sole purpose of disseminating accurate information on foreign and Imperial matters in a popular manner, without advocating any doctrine or policy. The membership fee is fixed very low and this accounts for the need, in circumstances which I shall explain, for some State aid.
The Association enables soldiers, sailors, airmen, schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, students and workpeople in all parts of the Empire to receive the literature which is summed up in the British Survey produced by the Association. In this type of activity, the Association might therefore be compared with the Workers' Educational Association or the University extension organisation which already receive grants-in-aid. It is, in fact, an educational body and if hon. Members glance at the British Survey, which I shall be glad to place at their

disposal, they will see that the work done by the Association is of an estimable character and compares very well with the work of those other organisations. The governors are trained men representing widely different interests. The chairman is Mr. G. M. Young who served at the Board of Education and is well-known as a writer; other typical governors are Mr. Walter Adams, secretary of the London School of Economics, Mr. J. W. H. Brown, chairman of the International Relations Committee of the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Ernest Green, general secretary of the Workers' Educational Association, and Mr. W. E. Williams, secretary of the British Institute for Adult Education. There are of course many other governors but the names I have mentioned will indicate the nature of the supervision which is exercised over the work of this Association. Mr. Harold Butler, the head of Nuffield College, the High Commissioner for Refugees, Sir Herbert Emerson, and the chairman of the International Committee of the National Federation of Women's Institutes are also members on the governing body.
I said in my opening remarks that the work of the Association was not connected with politics. The Association has some 2,000 members and already in the short time that the Association has been at work, there are nearly 3,000 regular readers of the British Survey and the number is increasing. A classification of the readers of the Survey may interest the Committee. It is taken chiefly in schools by schoolmasters and school-mistresses and others engaged in adult education. It is taken by education authorities in England and Scotland and in the Colonial Empire. It is taken by county and borough authorities in English counties and industrial districts, for instance, in Coventry, Derby, and Durham and big cities like Edinburgh. Copies of the Survey also taken in Bengal, Burmuda, Hong Kong, and Tanganyika. This indicates the manner in which the work of the Association is spread not only over this country but over the Empire.
These surveys are also used among other purposes for lectures to the troops during the winter. This is an important aspect of the Association's work; and 300 lectures have been arranged for the Canadian troops alone by the Association during the coming winter. The survey


is also largely used by the Workers Educational Association classes and copies are distributed to officers and men in the Army, Navy and Air Force through the central advisory committee on education in His Majesty's Forces. The Association is appealing for funds to extend, in particular, the work already undertaken of giving information to the troops throughout the winter on the matters dealt with in the British Survey. The Survey is also used in public libraries. For instance, in my county of Essex, all the public libraries are subscribers to it.
The nature of the Survey is best described by reference to a letter written at the end of last year and signed by a former President of the Board of Educaticn, Lord Eustace Percy, the Secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Oxford and Cambridge Directors of Extra-Mural Studies. Surveys, as described in the brochure of the Association, have been made of the Commonwealth and of foreign countries and various aspects of international affairs. I have copies of the Surveys here and the first one I notice is in reference to the petroleum resources of the Empire and of the enemy. Another particularly effective one is entitled "How a Nazi is made." It describes the process of manufacturing a Nazi in Germany and is thoroughly documented. A third deals with Iceland and its importance at the present time is obvious. A fourth deals with raw materials from south-eastern Europe. These are only examples from the vast range of information given in these Surveys and I shall be glad to make them more readily available for study by hon. Members if they so desire.
Now as to the financial position. Hon. Members will sec that this is a £1 for £1 grant. The Estimate says that the grant in aid will be subject to a maximum of £2,500 and this will be shared on the basis of £1 for every £1 received by the Association from other sources such as donations and subscriptions. The finances of the Association which we are asked to support are as follow: Subscriptions and donations reach a figure of £2,541. Of this sum £1,500 was raised before the bombardment began. Since then the normal flow of subscriptions has been somewhat restricted but efforts are being made to continue and even to increase the membership. Since June the

Association has reduced its annual rate of expenditure so as to cover this survey, the provision of London and Scottish offices of the Association, and the provision of lectures for the troops during the winter.
In this connection the Scottish office of the Association is undertaking some particularly valuable work, which makes this matter one of special interest to the Foreign Office. It is undertaking to give lectures to members of the Allied forces resident in Scotland. Members of the Allied forces sometimes have time on their hands and the opportunity of giving them lectures under the auspices of this Association is a very excellent one. The present annual estimate of the Association is rather over £5,000. Therefore, it will be seen that the grant for which the Committee is asked amounts to about half the annual expenditure. So far, £1,250 has been issued by the Civil Contingencies Fund, donations and subscriptions having considerably exceeded this sum for the period ended 30th September last.
That describes the scope and nature of the Association and also its financial position. It is determined to extend its work by raising special additional funds, which is an earnest of its determined purpose. The work which, I think, will be most important in the coming winter is that connected with His Majesty's Forces, but educational work will still be very important throughout the country. The Committee may, therefore, be assured that there will be scope and value in the comparatively small sum which is being granted, in comparison with some of the other Votes, for this Association. I believe that this venture will be worth supporting, and I, at any rate, am glad to move that this sum be granted on behalf of the Foreign Office Vote.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This, I understand, is the first grant being made for the British Association for International Understanding, and it is, as the Under-Secretary has said, a very modest sum which is involved. I do not know very much about the British Association for International Understanding, but I do know it is run by men of great ability and public spirit. I believe it has a useful function to perform in time of peace, and perhaps it can do, as indeed


the Under-Secretary has shown, very special service in time of war. Everyone in all quarters of the Committee will be agreed that the work of the British Association for International Understanding must to-day be more important than it has ever been. After all, this war is being waged in the hope that we shall end aggression for good and all, and that can only be accomplished if we have a lot more international understanding than has been the case for the last 10 years, and, as has been conclusively proved by events, if we have British leadership of international institutions of a kind which has not yet been evident. I agree with the Under-Secretary that Government money could hardly be spent on a more desirable object than this.
However, I should like an assurance on a certain question of principle which I think is involved—a question of principle in which our British practice has differed from that of some foreign countries. This is a purely voluntary private organisation which is concerned with education in international affairs. For many years I have said, in public and private, and at committees upon which I have served and movements with which I am connected, that such education is of the utmost importance. The Under-Secretary has outlined some of its work, such as lectures for the troops and Allied Forces in Scotland, which is of the greatest interest at the present time. But, if we are to give Government money for purposes such as this, we ought to be extremely careful that the work is educational and that it does not become political propaganda. I say that, although I am convinced in my own mind that if there was to be political propaganda done by this body, knowing those who run it, it would be political propaganda with which I personally should agree. Even if I had organised this body myself, I should be very careful if I intended to do any political propaganda before accepting a Government grant, in view of what we have seen practised on the Continent of Europe. We know that in France, Italy and other countries there are propaganda bodies. I have had to work with propaganda bodies, concerned with this very matter, which have had Government money. It has been utterly destructive of their utility in every way. The principle

of Government grants to such bodies was, in a certain small measure, responsible for the course of events in the last 20 years. Therefore, I repeat again, that I hope that, if this money is granted, it will be perfectly plain that it is for education, interpreted in a broad way and dealing with fundamental issues in foreign affairs which Governments must face and the problems they must solve. It should not deal, directly or indirectly, with what can be called political propaganda, because in that case I am quite sure that this organisation and the Committee would regret that such a grant had been made.

Mr. Mander: I naturally approach any request for finance for the stimulation of good will between nations with the greatest possible sympathy, but there are one or two points I should like to raise in connection with the proposed grant. I have heard from those who make use of the Surveys how extremely useful they find them. They praise them in the highest possible terms as being most valuable and most informative. I want to be perfectly clear about that. But the point I wish to make is that the Government must justify granting funds for the first time to a new association, and we must be perfectly satisfied that there is no existing organisation which is capable of undertaking this work. The Government, of course, are financing various institutions, many of which are quite unsuitable for this kind of work. They are financing the British Council, and I do not suggest that they could undertake the work. Then again the Foreign Office do a great deal of propaganda work of a different kind, and, no doubt, something is being done by the Secret Service. I am wondering—and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this point—whether Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, to which a very large sum has already been granted, could not properly be asked to extend its activities, which seem to fit in very well with the sort of thing we are dealing with here.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is getting on to rather wide alternatives to the business which is now before us.

Mr. Mander.: I was only wishing in passing, to put to my right hon. Friend that we ought not to grant this money in this way unless we are satisfied there are no


alternative methods for doing this work. However, I do not wish to go into detail on this matter. In the heading of the Surveys it states that this Society is formed
to enable British people to understand international affairs.
We ought to ask ourselves before granting this money whether the work is not already being done to a considerable extent by private organisations in which no expenditure of public funds is involved. For instance, it is known that the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses have brought out very valuable series of booklets and pamphlets upon this subject. The Oxford University Press has published 35 pamphlets on world affairs, at 3d. each, which cover very much the same ground dealt with here. The Cambridge University Press has brought out some political booklets on "Current Problems," at 3s. 6d. each, under the general guidance of Dr. Ernest Barker. Messrs. MacMillan have brought out a series of war pamphets at 3d. each dealing with tile same problem, as have Messrs. Francis Aldor while other publishers have dealt with the question, I admit in a rather more controversial way.
Looking at the Survey itself—and my right hon. Friend has been good enough to send me copies of the various issues—I notice that there is one on "Petroleum," and one on "How a Nazi is Made"; But I seem to remember that there is a number of very excellent "Penguins" which have been issued dealing with this very important question of "How a Nazi is made." One wants to be very careful to see that there is no duplication going on. The subject of another issue of the survey is "Fascist Italy and the Historical Background," and there is another on "China Builds for the Future." In this connection I noticed with some interest that the association is organising a series of lectures, in the National Portrait Gallery, by eminent persons. But I also notice with some astonishment and regret that for a lecture dealing with Japan, on 17th April they selected as Chairman, Sir Francis Lindley, who is known to take strongly pro-aggressor and anti-victim point of view throughout the whole of the episodes in the Far East. It does not impress me as being very wise of an association which will enjoy public

money. They will have to do better than that if they are to justify a grant from public funds.
My right hon. Friend said there is a Survey on Iceland. They are all extremely interesting, and I have read many of them. Another deals with India, and political developments in India, and there is another interesting one on Canada. For a subscription of only 6s. 6d., people are able to get 26 of these Surveys—that is 3d. each, which is very much the same price as some of the publications to which I have referred which have been brought out privately. While I appreciate the excellent work which this Association is doing, and wish to help any organisation in the country which is trying to bring better understanding and good will between nations, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the two points I have raised, namely, whether the Royal Institute of International Affairs could not have additions to their duties, and whether the ground is not to some extent covered at the present time by some of these private ventures to which I have referred.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I do not feel that I can let this Vote pass without a warning which was also given, to some extent, by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). Without exception, the Under-Secretary is a man who can most easily make a difficult case and simplify a complicated problem, and, for this grant he has made a plausible case. However, I want the Committee to know exactly what we are doing. I am in considerable sympathy with the promoters of this body, and I have a very great respect for Mr. G. M. Young, but where do we stop financing bodies which are promoting international understanding? When we give a grant to W.E.A., we do not give a grant for literature. We give a grant because a certain number of persons are going to meet for a regular period in classes. The classes are inspected by His Majesty's inspectors, reports are given, and a very happy relationship of a voluntary society with the State has grown up over a period of 30 or 40 years.
This is not quite the same thing. This is an attempt to be objective, and that is the most difficult thing for anyone to do


on international affairs. I have had four professors from the Ministry of Information in Ayrshire, two of them in my constituency, and I very gravely doubt the wisdom on the part of the Ministry of Information of allowing to be delivered some of the speeches that I have heard, because in these days it is preferable that thought should be stimulated at all costs on these questions. They tend to cancel each other out. I have heard men coming away from a lecture saying, "What then is the war about?" I have heard very alarming statements made because each lecturer has tried to preserve objectivity, and, with the best will in the world, his bias is bound to come in. One man is rather anti-American. It has been clear in every lecture. Another has had such a happy time in pre-war Germany that he thinks it a pretty good place for the working man to live in, and so on. I have read scores of these Surveys, and in many cases they are first-class, but what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do? He says that, because my hon. Friend here thinks they are good, therefore the State is going to subsidise them. Suppose I started a series of surveys and I have been associated for some years with voluntary bodies which are trying to make an objective study of social and economic questions. It has never been asked that the State should have anything to do with these private ventures, because you destroy the most precious part of them which is the voluntary side of the work, which is bound to change with the changing course of the world. When this body came to the Board of Education some months ago we said we would allow these surveys to be made known to local authorities, but we could do nothing more. I was very strongly in favour of going as far as that, but no further. Teachers use them, but this is a new venture for lectures to be given.
There is a body set up by the War Office in conjunction with a very representative educational body presided over by Sir Walter Moberly which is dealing with this kind of work for the troops. There is a regional organisation all over the country, and there are thousands of lectures. On balance it should go on, though there are great dangers even there, because the speakers are subsidised. When you give a definite subvention to a body which is trying its best to present nothing

more or less than an objective account of the life and habits of people in the Dominions, the Colonies and other parts of the world, we ought to be extremely careful. I have a certain sympathy with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). There is a number of publishers, working under considerable difficulties, who are making a brave effort, particularly the Oxford University Press, and it does not work for a subsidy. It seems so harmless—£2,500—that one is apt to say. "Let it go," but we ought, of course, to have reports on this. Mr. G. M. Young is a great friend of mine and has done magnificent work. I wish for his own sake he had kept it a voluntary body. Its strength would have been greater. If a body whose origins might be a little different, which might be associated with hon. Friends of mine who normally sit in this part of the House came along, some society which was going to improve the relations between trade unions throughout the world—a very excellent idea—it could not have a better object in view. Would the State be prepared to give pound for pound? Where does it stop, and where does it begin? I only enter this warning because even in the middle of a war, perhaps particularly because we are in the middle of a war, we ought to be particularly careful how we subsidise bodies which are promoting international understanding.

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to oppose this Vote, and I gather that one or two speakers who have preceded me are not quite certain in their own minds about the rightness of granting public money for this purpose. I wish they would come out more openly and say they do not think we ought to spend public money on this society, however excellent the recommendation the Under-Secretary has given us. One of my principal reasons for opposing the Vote is that it is discriminatory. It is giving this society a privileged position which it ought not to have. At any rate, if we are going to grant public money for this purpose, what control has Parliament over either the conduct of the affairs of the society or the type of literature that it puts out? Is there to be any Government representation on the governing body of the society? I should have thought, for such a small amount of money as this, something like the Nuffield Trust, or that large fund


which Lord Baldwin controls, and not Parliament, would have been the people to advance the money. As regards lectures to the troops, I welcome any efforts made in that direction, but that is an entirely separate arrangement. Separate funds are granted by the Treasury to the War Office to provide lecturers for the troops. I look with a great deal of suspicion on all these different people lecturing to the troops on various matters, many of them controversial, and I know very well that if some regular speakers wanted to put their point of view on the same subject, the military authorities would not be too keen to have them.
I hope the House will make up its mind definitely and not be led away by the very nice words which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in favour of the society, but there is no doubt that on such a subject as this, international relations and the promotion of a better international understanding, in so far as this body sends its literature or lecturers, there might very well grow up a feeling that, because the Foreign Office have advocated the grant of public money, all that it says and does will be the Foreign Office point of view and that it will not be, as we should desire it, a comprehensive survey of international relations, and not the British point of view entirely, though I quite agree with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that the British point of view at present is probably the best point of view that could be given. If we are to get any satisfactory result from the war, it must be something far wider than that if we are to get a real co-operative effort between the nations. The Foreign Office, with their powerful influence, have only to say to Lord Nuffield, "Here is a worthy object," and I am certain the money would be forthcoming at once. Do not let us ask this and then, if other bodies come to us, refuse them because they have not the Foreign Office recommendation.

Sir Stanley Reed: I hope that nothing that I may say will be construed into a reflection on the distinguished gentlemen who have founded and are undertaking the management of this Association. The last thing that I want to do is to raise any meticulous objections on small grounds of this character. But it seems to me that the proposal is funda-

mentally bad, and even at this late stage I think the Foreign Office will be well advised to withdraw it and give it further consideration. This work is being done by other bodies. More than 20 years ago a very important body was born for the promotion of the very objects of this Association. It was a large and powerful organisation, with substantial funds, and it makes no request for any assistance from the State for that branch of its work. It is true that it may have been beguiled into other paths not to its advantage, and that forms a very grim warning to this body, that it has been diverted from its true purpose by being associated with the State. Far the most valuable work in this field is that done by men of high qualifications who are perfectly free from any trammels and can therefore state their case with relative freedom of action.
It is argued that this body will pursue a purely objective course. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. blander) quoted the name of an authority on Eastern affairs. Anyone who knows anything about Eastern affairs is aware that that distinguished gentleman has the strongest opinions on one side of the case, and to think that he would give an objective view of that field of international affairs is absurd and impossible. Such an authority should contribute to a private body and not to one that draws funds from the State. A further point of view was put by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). I think that this body has made a serious error in going to the Foreign Office for funds. It would be far more effective and efficient if it were free from any connection with the State and developed its own ideas with the knowledge it has behind it without feeling all the time that it might do something to give offence to the Foreign Office. The Board of Education were far wiser than the Foreign Office, for they refused to be lured into giving a grant to this body. It has found the Foreign Office rather more pliable, and it is taking a course which is bad in its own interests, bad in the interests of the State and had for all work of this character.

Mr. A. Bevan: Did the hon. Member say that an application of this sort has been made to the Board of Education and turned down?

Sir S. Reed: So I understood from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

Mr. Bevan: Can we have an answer why the Board of Education turned it down?

Mr. Butler: I am not aware that this body appealed to the Board of Education for a grant. Perhaps the late Parliamentary Secretary will be able to inform the hon. Member. As far as I know, the first application for a grant owing to the present stringency was made very recently, and it is that grant which we are now considering.

Mr. Lindsay: As I understand it, this body approached the Board of Education to see whether they could help in making known its publications throughout the schools. The Board did say that they would make them known, but there was no question of giving a subsidy to the organisation. In fact; it could not be done.

Sir E. Reed: I understand that the body went to the Board for assistance and that the Board decided that the only assistance they could give was in assisting the distribution of its literature. What will happen in practice if this grant-in-aid is made? A grant-in-aid is a fixed sum and cannot be withdrawn as long as the conditions are satisfied. This small grant will be lost in the expenditure of the Foreign Office. When foreign affairs come before the House they deal with issues so vast and important that it is impossible for the House or the Foreign Office itself to exercise any real control over such funds as it is now asking the Committee to grant. Work of this character should be under the Ministry of Information, and it could be constantly reviewed by the House and by the Minister responsible. Therefore, the House could exercise a measure of control. This is a second time the Foreign Office have come to the Committee for a grant for work entirely outside their purview. It is not only objectionable in practice that these miscellaneous demands should be made and then passed out of effective control. It is not in the interest of the society itself to be in the remotest degree linked with the State. The work has been done and is being done admirably by other older organisations and private agencies, and that is a far better machine for this purpose. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not press this matter.

Mr. Silverman: I find myself in the unaccustomed position of disagreeing with the critics of the Government and supporting the proposal before the Committee. Wars take place because international understanding breaks down, and during a war the cause of international understanding inevitably weakens and drops. That is natural, for it is difficult to make the mental and spiritual effort necessary to understand the people who are dropping bombs upon you when you are sheltering from the bombs. The effort necessary has to be made. The Government recognise that it has to be made and the Committee recognise it too. Nobody has a word to say against the activities of this Association.

Mr. Mander: Oh, yes!

Mr. Silverman: There may be criticisms of how the work is done, but no one will have a word to say against the efforts of any body genuinely engaged in an educational sense in spreading the cause of international understanding when it is necessary that it should be spread. The difference of opinion is as to whether the Government should support such an effort financially. One hon. Member asked whether the Foreign Office could not have quietly suggested to Lord Nuffield that he should make a grant to this body. Recognising the dangers that are involved, I would rather that the most reactionary Government should have some control of this work as a slight cost than that it should be dependent on some individual. Whenever the House votes money it has some opportunity of controlling the expenditure and of criticising how it should be applied and the policy of the person spending it. I have no sympathy with the suggestion that, if it is recognised that the work ought to be done and that this body is rendering a public service in doing it and ought to be supported, it should go to some private philanthropist for support.
An alternative suggestion is that this is properly the work of the Ministry of Information. That is exactly what it is not. The Ministry of Information cannot but be a propagandist instrument. That is what it was set up for. In peacetime we do not have a Ministry of Information. In war-time it is part of the war effort designed to help us to win. Whether its


policy and activities do help us to win is a matter of criticism and debate from time to time. The work that is being done by this organisation is not intended to be propagandist. It is intended to be objective. I see nothing to deplore in the Government, in the midst of war, saying, "We see nothing wrong with our case and we do not think it will suffer by objectivity. If only all the world could be equally objective, the war would come to an end to-morrow. If our case is right, objectivity does not hurt it." We cannot have objectivity in a Department like the Ministry of Information. I do not mind the Government saying, "We will grant this small amount to enable this body to proceed with a job which can only do good to the world and can do no harm to our own case."

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the hen. Member deal with this point? I understand him to say that one of the objects to which he desires this money to go is to provide us with a better understanding of those who are dropping bombs on us. Does the hon. Member suggest that that is a proper subject for Government money at the present time?

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member does himself an injustice. He does not usually make small and not very satisfactory debating points in his speeches, and I have never known him to interrupt a speech in order to make a debating point which I am sure he will, on consideration, realise would have been better left unsaid and was not justified by anything in my speech.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member clearly said that it was important that we should understand others, and I understood him to say that among those people whom we ought to understand are those who are dropping bombs on us. I ask a simple question, to which there should be a simple answer, whether the hon. Member suggests that it is a proper subject for the expenditure of Government money to promote understanding of those who are dropping bombs on us.

Mr. Silverman: I see no reason why the hon. Member should get so excited. I have said that the cause of international understanding is important. Does he deny that? Does not the whole future of the world depend on international understanding? Is there any hope for us

unless we make that effort for international understanding? Is not the whole war about that as far as we are concerned? Is there anything inconsistent in saying that if you are in favour of international understanding, that means understanding the enemy as well as we understand ourselves? A good soldier would have known that the first duty of a combatant is to understand his enemy. [An HON. MEMBER: "For what purpose"?] For the purpose of victory and of living with him afterwards. I do not wish to be diverted, but, after all, we have to live with him afterwards.

The Chairman: I think the Debate is getting a little wide, as the hon. Member himself seemed to indicate.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise if I have been led away, but as long as the interruptions were allowed, I thought it was not improper to reply to them. The point I was making was that so far from having any objection to it I was glad that in the midst of this war, and at a very critical phase of it, the Government should find it possible to make a contribution to certain bodies with the object of developing and improving international understanding. I was saying, also, that the Ministry of Information was not the proper body to do this work. Anyone who heard the speech on the wireless last night by Mr. Valentine Williams will appreciate exactly why it is not the proper body. I never heard such a deplorable statement.

The Chairman: It seems that Chatham House and the B.B.C. are both words which rouse the Chairman out of his Chair in order to keep hon. Members from straying from the proper path.

Mr. Silverman: I was not aware, Sir Dennis, that I had strayed from it. I do not think the cause of international understanding is furthered by methods such as those adopted by the Ministry of Information, which was responsible for the speech on the wireless last evening. I was using that instance to combat the suggestion that this work would be better performed by the Ministry of Information, because I do not believe it for a moment. No scientific body, no educational body, designed to produce publications and organise lectures and educational activities, would sponsor a speech designed to lead people to suppose that all original


sin when the world was created was confined to that quarter of Europe which was not then, but is now, within the frontiers of modern Germany. It is a most absurd thing to say, a most wicked thing to say.

The Chairman: A large part of the speech of the hon. Member has been very far outside the range of this Debate, and I must ask him to keep closer to the actual Vote we are discussing.

Mr. Silverman: I find it extremely difficult, Sir Dennis, to understand in what way I am offending. I thought we were debating whether the Committee should support a grant of money to a body for the purpose of promoting international understanding.

The Chairman: Yes, that is so, but the hon. Member should know by this time that it is the duty of the Chair to keep a Debate of this kind within proper limits. It is not always very easy to draw an exact line, but the hon. Member's speech has been, I think, for some little time past very remote from the point, and I must ask him to keep closer to it.

Mr. Silverman: For a considerable time past my speech has been devoted to replying to interjections, and if those interjections were relevant I supposed the replies would be relevant. I am supporting the Government in the grant of this money because I believe it helps our cause, and helps humanity, if at this time we vote a small amount of money to a body which can do objectively what we, by the very act of voting the money, agree ought to be done. I hope the Government will see that in the expenditure of this money nothing is done which can worsen the cause of international understanding, and will not allow themselves to be attracted by the kind of propaganda which the Ministry of Information have put out. I will leave it there, because I do not want to rouse conflict with the Chair, but I should have thought that the considerations I have been urging were relevant.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I, too, would like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Vote for further consideration. I could not disagree more than I do with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silver-

man). I think this is essentially a matter for the Ministry of Information. I am told that the Ministry of Information's job is to carry on propaganda, but propaganda should be objective. The whole purpose of the Ministry of Information is to present the British case, and if the British case cannot stand objective examination we deserve to lose the war. I am one of those who want as much money as possible to be spent upon war propaganda, because we shall not succeed unless we spend that money, but I do not see why this particular Association for which I, like other hon. Members, have a great respect, should come round to the back door to get a special grant. Its claim to present the British case should surely stand in competition with all other methods of explaining what we and the British Empire stand for. It should go to the Ministry of Information, it should be studied by the Ministry of Information along with all the other methods there may be, and it should stand or fall as a result of that examination. I would earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter, because there is an extraordinarily dangerous question of principle involved. If once we begin to subsidise bodies like this we shall have every other organisation which wants to present one conception or other of the British case trimming its sails and asking whether it ought to say this or that because of losing its chance, when it gets hard up, of getting money from the Foreign Office. I therefore support what other hon. Members have said and ask whether this Vote cannot be withdrawn for reconsideration.

Sir Walter Smiles: I came with an open mind to this Debate, and I thank goodness that at the present time we are not so much bound by party ties. In the past, all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, have at times voted against our convictions. On the question of imposing conscription in Northern Ireland and on the Defence Votes many Members on both sides voted with their party and against their own convictions. This time I am against giving money to the Foreign Office for the purpose for which it has been asked. There is no representative of the War Office on the Front Bench, at the moment, but I should like to know what the War Office think of these gentlemen coming along to give


addresses to the troops. Before the war the strength of our Army was about 200,000 men. Now it is 1,500,000. Surely, in the Army itself there are all sorts of speakers representing every sort of opinion who are capable of giving an objective address to the troops. But it is not so much a matter of that: the only question for us at the moment is our survival as a nation, and everything must be done to make us survive, and for that reason I should like to see a Vote like this under the control of the Ministry of Information. It should be also controlled, in a way, by the War Office, because I have seen with my own eyes one great army break as a result of irresponsible speeches made to it, as happened in 1917 when the great army of Russia broke. One must face up to these considerations when we remember that we have an Army which is going to be sorely tried in the future, and that our Air Force and our Navy are at the moment being tried every day. I should like to see this work not under the control of the Foreign Office but under the control of the Ministry of Information, and with the agreement and support of the War Office.

Mr. A. Bevan: It seems to me that we are in grave danger of having far too much diversity in some of the Government's activities. They are so diverse that the House of Commons has long since ceased to have any effective control over what is done by many Government Departments. Here we have an additional body which we shall have to watch, because once the House gives money to a body it is under an obligation to see how it is spent, and it has become physically and constitutionally impossible for Members of Parliament to discharge that function. I should have thought that any Government Department would have been very chary indeed about adding to the amount of work we have to do. If we are to find money for this object we shall have the obligation, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) pointed out, of considering its behaviour when the Foreign Office Vote comes up for discussion. But will the Foreign Office accept responsibility for the day to day administration of this body? Is it practicable for the Foreign Office to watch the behaviour of this body to that extent? Hon. Members must see that we are getting into a difficult constitutional

position. We must hold the Minister responsible for the use of money, but the Minister has handed that money to a body over which he has no effective control, and therefore, by the process of ordinary deduction, it follows that the House of Commons will have no control. The time has come for the House to watch more strictly the voting of money to the Government, because the only way in which we can ultimately control the Government is through the medium of the funds with which we provide it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said that he has no objection, and no one should have any objection, to an objective advocacy of international understanding. I have been trying to explain to my own mind what he meant by the word "objective." I should be interested to hear any hon. Member make an objective statement on international principles that would not arouse fierce opposition in all parts of the Chamber. After all, international organisation, international understanding, is not yet a science: it is an art.

Mr. Silverman: Objective does not mean that it is generally accepted, but a thing succeeds in being objective if it is said with the single object of trying to state the truth as it really is without partiality or favour, prejudice or hate.

Mr. Bevan: At once the hon. Member loses his way, because once a thing has to be regarded as objective by reference to the intention of the person saying it it becomes subjective. So for the life of me I cannot see how it will be possible to get agreement on this matter. I have always understood, though I may be wrong, that a thing becomes objective when it can be tested by a number of dispassionate and impersonal principles. The most objective thing of all is a thermometer, but no one has a thermometer of international affairs. It is, therefore, impossible for us to find any body of principle that this association is going to propagate which would find general agreement in the House. This is a controversial Chamber. It is a place where we try to bring principles and facts into correspondence with realities and to act upon them. This is not primarily a fact-finding assembly, not primarily an experimental assembly, not primarily an exploratory assembly, but a place where we have to make up our minds between


one passionate and partial and controversial opinion and another, and apply it to the realities. A fact-finding and experimental organisation is just the body for which we should not find money, because there is no body of principles about which one can get general approval that such an organisation can advocate in speeches or lectures or books. Therefore, we ought not to associate ourselves with it.
I do not rise in order to be difficult, but I believe that hon. Members will see that we are confronting a real difficulty here. The case has not been made out for the provision of money in this way. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to withdrawing his Vote, or adjourning it, in order to see whether it is not possible to reconsider the position. After all, it is not a large sum of money. The organisation will not collapse if the money is not found, and it may be that this discussion will inspire other people to interest themselves in the organisation and find whatever money is necessary in order to keep it going, if its exploratory educational work has any value. I earnestly suggest that it is not a body with which this Committee ought to associate itself, unless it can have effective control of the money which is to be found.

Mr. Hannah: I have had a great deal of experience of university extension work, and I never enjoyed lecturing more than when I lectured to soldiers, since the beginning of the war, partly through the War Office and partly through the ordinary University Extension Movement. The real value of lecturing to soldiers was the discussion afterwards, in which everybody had an opportunity of expressing his opinion. Is it necessary, if we make this grant, that it should be unconditional? Would it not be possible to make the condition that every lecture given should leave a definite amount of time for discussion, that no lecturer can have this opportunity unless he is willing to be questioned on all the points that he has made and that a discussion should follow? As to publication, would it be possible to have a small Committee of this House to supervise any publication that was put forward, either to reject it if it were hopelessly partisan or to put in some sort

of postscript? These questions might be settled by granting the money not unconditionally but under arrangements that would enable this Committee to maintain effective supervision.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think some of my hon. Friends have pushed their arguments rather far in opposition to this Vote—certainly farther than I should do. I very sincerely believe that there is scope for more education in international affairs. Perhaps I am prejudiced. For a short period in my murky past I held the Chair of International Relationships at one of our universities. My friends used to say that no one but I understood what International Relations meant, and therefore I could say whatever I liked. It was an experimental Chair, but it was, in fact, continued, and it has been followed by the creation of similar Chairs in other universities.
I think all who have had anything to do with this matter are satisfied—indeed, are fully convinced—that it is a very important part of education at the present time. International affairs are a problem of government, like local government, the working of Parliamentary institutions, and the rest. In our schools and universities we have had a good deal of teaching of citizenship, constitutional history, political science and other such subjects. Many of my hon. Friends who have spoken against this proposal are keenly in favour of the development of such teaching, but we believe that it must be educational and not propagandist. In proposing this Vote the Minister mentioned the Workers' Educational Association; if this were another Workers' Educational Association, and if my hon. Friends were satisfied of that, I believe that nearly all their objections would fall to the ground. But in that case, I should have expected that, when this proposal was brought forward, it would he brought to the House by the Board of Education and not by the Foreign Office. The Government ought to give more consideration than they have done to the points of view which have been put forward to-day. I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not press this Vote to a final decision at this Sitting, but should take the Committee stage, consider what has been said, consult hon. Members about their objections and then bring the matter before us again for deci-


sion at a later stage, on some future occasion.

Mr. Butler: It has been clear to anyone listening to the Debate that there are doubts in the minds of hon. Members. The first thing the Government should do is pay attention to the valuable criticism which is put forward by the Committee. I will at once undertake that the matter shall be looked into, in the light of the criticisms made. I found them very interesting. Only one expression I do not think is true, which is that this association approached the Government by a back door in order to get support. In fact, the matter has been perfectly open throughout.

Mr. Bartlett: I did not mean to use the phrase in any derogatory fashion.

Mr. Butler: Ouite so, but I want to take up the phrase, which suits my purpose in explaining how this matter came about. We have come to the Committee to ask for £2,500 for an Association, the main object of which has, I think, general support. The Committee feel that this is not a matter which ought to be brought forward—or several hon. Members feel so—on the Foreign Office Vote. Some do so because they see difficulties of control, others because they want to know more about the Association and others, I think, through a misapprehension. In the circumstances, the best course seems to be that hon. Members should let the Committee stage go by now, on the b understanding that the Government will reconsider this Vote before the Report stage, and when the next stage comes forward, a statement should be made by the Government as to the results of their deliberation.
Meanwhile, I should be very glad to consult hon. Members who have raised points, because I do not believe it would be in the interests of this Association to press a matter through the Committee, and thereby to create an impression that the work of the Association is not, on the whole, and subject to normal human differences of opinion, one which the Committee would wish to press forward. If that procedure is agreed to, I will give that undertaking, so that the Committee will have complete control of future policy regarding this matter, when it is raised again on the Report stage.
I would like to refer to one or two details—the question for instance, of lec-

turing to the troops. Please do not let the Committee get the impression that there is anything peculiar about this. No lecture has been given to the troops except at the request of the welfare organisation, and the regional committees for education in the Forces, under the military authorities. The matter has therefore been just as above board as the manner in which we have asked for the money to-day. On many other questions which have been raised the Committee will not expect me to go into detail, but let me say again that there is nothing very mysterious about this matter. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) will turn to the annual report of the Council of the Royal Institute of International Affairs for 1938–39, he will see that Chatham House, in which he is interested, welcomed the foundation of this Association and claimed that co-operation was maintained between the two organisations, and that Chatham House had placed its resources of information at the disposal of the association. Members of the council of Chatham House are members of the governing body.

Sir S. Reed: Is my right hon. Friend saying that Chatham House supported the proposal that this body, with which it was working in liaison, should become a State Department by a grant from the funds?

Mr. Butler: I should say that my hon. Friend was correct that, at that date, they were not envisaging it, and that is another argument for looking into this matter more closely. I should like also to place my observations in the hands of the Committee in regard to the Board of Education, and to tell them the full circumstances. I gave them my personal impression of what happened, and I should like to have a right of investigating the matter, in order to give this Committee full information. I do not want to make any statement or investigation which is not quite open, so that the Committee may have the full facts at its disposal.
I think that statement answers the outstanding points, and I trust that the Committee agree that the educational work done by this body is above reproach. It makes a genuine attempt, not only in its, work with the troops, but with the


Workers' Educational Association itself—from which I can read out a testimonial—with the students, in the Empire and in India. It will be seen that the objective work of this association is very admirable. So far as I can see, the problem for us this afternoon is to find the best manner of supporting this work, but I must say that I am not convinced that purely private sources will be sufficient. If they are not sufficient, we must meet the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on the question of control and supervision and see what can be done about it. Therefore, I hope, in the interval, to find some method of helping this Association which will receive the unanimous support and approval of the Committee. I hope that we shall now be able to pass this Vote.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know whether I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright. Does he mean that we are to accept this Vote in principle but leave to a later stage the method with which we shall deal with the Association, but that, actually, £2,500 will, at some stage and in some manner, be granted to this association? If that is the purport of it, I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken cognisance of the fact that some of us are entirely against this proposal on principle. I, for one, could not support any public funds going to this society, even if the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter up again at a later stage.

Mr. Butler: I think hon. Members will have a perfect opportunity of expressing their views on this matter when it is raised on the Report stage. I have already said that we shall not press this matter through against the wish of this Committee. I cannot believe that any hon. Member will feel that he is being trapped into a position of doing something that he does not want to do.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and grants in aid of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the British Association for International Understanding.

Orders of the Day — CLASS III.

HOME OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £375,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, subordinate offices, liquidation expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, contributions towards the expenses of Probation and a grant in aid of the Central Committee for Refugees.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The principle of financial aid to the voluntary organisations who have sponsored and made themselves responsible for the 50,000 German refugees who entered this country in the years before the war was accepted by the Committee on 22nd February. When I introduced a Supplementary Estimate for £180,000 in respect of the financial year ending on 6th April I explained that very greatly increased responsibilities had been thrown upon the refugee organisations by the outbreak of the war. I told the Committee that, up to that date, these organisations had raised and spent on behalf of those unfortunate victims of Nazi spite and hatred, upwards of £5,000,000. On that occasion the Committee agreed to a grant of £180,000 covering the period from 1st September, 1939, up to the end of the financial year. That proposal was well received in all parts of the Committee, and, in addition to tributes on all sides to the work of these voluntary organisations, some complimentary references were made to the sympathetic attitude of the Home Office to wards this refugee problem. I do not know whether those complimentary references will be repeated on this occasion, but we have found it necessary since February last to increase still further the amount of provision which the Government must make in aid of these refugees. However, as the general picture was explained in February and as the principle was then accepted, I do not think I need now do very much more than give a short picture of the financial situation as it exists to-day.
On the outbreak of war the expenditure of these organisations rose to a figure of some £2,000 per day, principally, of course, on grants for the maintenance of refugees. The arrangement made in February was that the Government would


contribute on a pound for pound basis, the object being to encourage and to avoid drying up the springs of private charity. A maximum figure was then fixed for the Government grant of £27,000 per month, and on that basis we proceeded until the end of the last financial year. When the accounts came to be investigated in July it was apparent that what the Government had in fact contributed was the maximum of £27,000 per month, but it was only some 40 per cent. of the expenditure of the refugee organisations during the period under review. It was then agreed at that time that we should increase retrospectively the amount to be found by the Government to make it up to the full pound for pound basis, and that we should provide a further sum to carry the organisations over until the end of September when a further review was to take place. The amounts of money therefore provided by the Government so far in aid of the voluntary organisations are £80, 000 granted in February last, a three months' provision which was provided in the Home Office Votes at the time of this year's Budget to carry them on for three months of £81,000, and a Supplementary Estimate in July last of £150,000 to make up retrospectively to the full 50 per cent. and to enable the organisations to carry on until the end of September. We are now asking the Committee to provide a sum of £375,000 in aid of these organisations to cover the period from 1st October last until the end of the current financial year.
I informed the Committee that the original pound for pound arrangement was intended to encourage the springs of private charity. As a result of the adoption by the Government of that 50–50 basis in the early part of the year, the principal organisation concerned, which is the Jewish organisation, launched a further appeal, and I think it is greatly to their credit that, in spite of the financial stringency caused by the war and the heavy increases in taxation made since the outbreak of the war, that appeal realised either in cash, or in promises over a period of years, a sum of £370,000. However, despite the raising of that additional sum, not all of which is, of course, immediately available in the form of cash, the organisations concerned approached the Home Office early in September and told us once more that they could not see their way for more than a few weeks or at the out-

side a few months ahead. The new arrangement which we have made with the Central Committee for Refugees, which co-ordinates in one body all the activities of these voluntary organisations, is on the following lines. It is that the Government will for the immediate future and up to the end of the current financial year find 100 per cent. of the amounts expended on the maintenance of refugees. We will, in addition, find 75 per cent. of the administration expenses. The safeguards which we have upon the economic expenditure of this money are these: the needs of every claimant will be assessed by the Assistance Board, and the Central Committee will see that the voluntary organisations carry out their undertaking that the rates of benefit payable shall not exceed the sums as assessed by the Assistance Board. So far as administration expenses are concerned, we have the Central Committee formed under Government auspices and with Treasury representatives sitting upon it, under the very capable Chairmanship of Sir Herbert Emerson who, I am sure, can be trusted to see that no money is wasted on the administration of these bodies. So far as welfare is concerned, the whole cost of that work will continue to be borne by the organisations as before, and they will also bear the remaining 25 per cent. of the costs of administration.

Mr. Mander: What about emigration?

Mr. Peake: I will deal with that towards the close of the Debate, if I may. I think the Committee will see that the alternative with which we were faced was either the collapse and disintegration of these voluntary organisations, or the support of them by the Government to the extent for which we are asking in this Vote. These organisations are, in fact, I think quite indispensable in dealing with the refugee problem. It has not by any means been only cash, clothing and things of that sort which they have provided for these unfortunate people. They give their care, sympathy and advice of all kinds in the very many difficult problems with which these unfortunate people have to deal. I am sure, not only for that reason, but also for the reason that some central scheme was indispensable and that it would have been quite unfair to have allowed large numbers of these poor persons to fall upon the public assistance of individual local authorities, that


these organisations must be supported in this way. I hope that the Committee will be assured that the Government has taken every possible step to secure economy in the administration of this money.

Mr. Mander: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he said that he would deal with the basis of expenses on emigration.

Mr. Peake: Perhaps if the hon. Member is going to speak, he will make his point, and I shall have an opportunity of replying.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Under-Secretary made an extremely clear statement. He made it quite plain that these organisations are performing a great public service. If they had not existed, I hesitate to think what would have happened to these refugees in this country and elsewhere. I am sure we shall all agree with the Under-Secretary in saying that none of us can pay too high a tribute to the organisations and the individual workers who, over long years of disaster and disappointment, have continued their heart-rending work of mercy with ever greater devotion and zeal. They might long ago have thrown up the sponge. They have done exactly the opposite, and the greater the disaster became the more energy they have shown. I am sure that we all deeply appreciate what they have done.
The Under-Secretary told us of the very great financial efforts which the organisations have made, and the sums of money which they have raised are amazing. That they should have been able to raise £370,000 while the war was in progress is little short of a miracle. The policy which the Government have pursued in regard to internment must have added to the responsibilities with which the Government had to deal, and I agree that the collapse of these organisations would be nothing short of a disaster. The Under-Secretary has explained—and I do not think anyone who knows the facts could possibly contest it—that if we had stuck to the pound for pound basis for all purposes, the organisations would have collapsed and could not have done the work which is, required. Therefore, I could not agree to opposing that which is required today. In fact, I am not certain that the

Government are not leaving too great a burden upon the shoulders of the organisations, and whether the money which they have is enough. I am quite satisfied with the guarantees in regard to economy and administration which the Government have received. I have known Sir Herbert Emerson for a long time. I have had the advantage of working with him on committees and in other ways, and I am sure that the Committee can be certain that with his knowledge of administration this money will be well spent, that it will not be wasted and that it will be used for the purposes for which it is intended.
I regret that on this Vote it has not been possible to have a wider Debate on the general policy which the Government pursued with regard to refugees and internment. I recognise, of course, that it is not possible, but I hope that the Government will consider representations in the early future that there should be such a Debate. In the last few weeks a new Minister has taken office as Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Many things have happened in the last six months. There are many issues of immediate policy. There is the main principle upon which the whole of our policy is based and which requires the early consideration of the Home Secretary, and I think that that consideration should be given in the light of the views which hon. Members may hold. In supporting the Vote, I hope that in a short time we may have a general Debate on the questions of policy which this matter involves.

Mr. Mander: I should like to join in the praise which has been expressed for the work of the voluntary organisations. I am sure they deserve it to the full. It would have been exceedingly difficult to carry out the work which has been done in connection with refugees without their available knowledge and experience; in fact, the only mistake that has been made has been in not consulting them more. Many of the difficulties the Government are in at the present time would have been lessened had we consulted them. A large number of people came over here for emigration before the war. Most of this was not done in association with the societies, and they therefore had no knowledge of the position, but had to come to the task afresh when it was thrust upon them after war


broke out, and all the people who could not emigrate—at least, as rapidly as was expected—had to be looked after. The work of the voluntary organisations was also increased, as has been pointed out, by the internment policy followed by the Government and the necessity of maintaining the wives and families of those who were interned or who had to leave prohibited and protected areas. Many people who were interned were actually wage-earning at the time. The internment policy of the Government is not in question at the moment, as I understand it would not be in order to raise it.
I also want to express admiration for the wonderful generosity of the subscribers, particularly the Jews, who have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds in addition to their other burdens during the period of the war. I think the Government are perfectly right and wise in coming to the House now and asking for this extra grant. I was, however, a little disappointed with what the Under-Secretary said in relation to expenditure on welfare. I understood him to say that that expenditure was to be borne entirely by the voluntary societies in future, whereas I should have thought that it would have been reasonable for the Exchequer to bear it in addition to the administration expenses, and I hope he will be able to see his way to concede that.
There is one point that I would like to press in regard to the general question of emigration. People are emigrating as rapidly as possible, and I understand that something like 4,000 have left in the last six months or so, to America. I am, however, disappointed to see that very few have gone to Palestine. In spite of our responsibilities there, so far as I know the number is only about 65.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I hope the hon. Member will not pursue this subject further. It does not come under this Vote.

Mr. Mander: I appreciate that it is connected with it perhaps by a rather narrow link. Perhaps one or two of the points I have raised will be dealt with subsequently.

Mr. Wedgwood: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I think this money is excessive, I think it is unnecessary, and I propose to vote against the grant. The Under-Secretary stated that we voted this money in February last. That was before the Government's policy of interning the whole of the Jewish alien refugees came into operation. It is that which has thrown an absolutely impossible burden upon the Jewish societies. It is because of that that we are asked to vote this sum now. I ask the Committee to observe what this sum of £375,000 which we are now voting really means. It means £1,000,000 a year, according to the figures.

Mr. Peake: This is over a period of six months; if my right hon. Friend will multiply £375,000 by two, it does not come to £1,000,000.

Mr. Wedgwood: I understand that hitherto a great deal of this money has been found by the society, but that they are unable to do so in future. Twice £375,000 comes to just £750,000. I am told that hitherto we have found 40 per cent., so I do not think I am underestimating the cost if I say that in a year it will come to £1,000,000. But that is not the total sum that will be thrown upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country by the Government's internment policy.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the Government's internment policy cannot possibly be discussed under this Vote. Some other occasion might be found, but now I must rule it out of Order.

Mr. Wedgwood: With all due respect, I desire to submit my reasons for thinking that this money ought not to be voted. It ought not to be voted because it enables the Government's internment policy to continue. If this money is not voted, the Government will be unable to carry on their internment policy, and for that reason I shall vote against it. I am sorry to differ on this occasion from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), but, of course, there always are, and always have been, two entirely different schools of thought in the Labour party in dealing with nearly every problem that comes up. There is a large school in the Labour party whose idea is always to be kind to the poor. They are the humanitarians of the party. They are to be found not only in the Labour


party; all parties in this House include a section which wishes at all costs to be kind to everybody. I have not the slightest desire to be kind to anybody. Working-class people do not want charity. The working class—and this is what they appreciate in the Labour party—is seeking justice, and exactly the same principles should be applied to the internment policy of the Government by everybody who speaks in this Debate. The hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) spend days and nights seeking to make the internment policy more tolerable.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have warned the right hon. Gentleman that the internment policy is not a subject which he can discuss under this Vote. I must therefore warn him again. I must rule him out of Order.

Mr. Wedgwood: I am not out of Order in giving my reasons for objecting to the Vote of this money. The Vote of this money will perpetuate a system which we, as a Committee, ought not to support. People are interned at the present time because it is expedient, or the Government think it is expedient, to intern them. The result of that internment is this enormous burden upon the Government and upon these societies of about £1,000,000 a year. If these people were not interned, they would at the present time be able to support their families. The Government and these societies are now supporting 279 wives of people who have been interned and who have been sent out to Canada and Australia. They are receiving part of this money. Again we have had people in good work, earning £4 a week, who have been interned, with the result that their wives and children have had to be supported out of this £375,000. The Under-Secretary in his speech did not mention that both in February and in August he promised facilities whereby a number of interned people would be able to escape from internment and get back to work, thereby ceasing to be a burden on this country. Those promises have not been carried out. The only category of people who have been released from internment in any numbers is the sickness category. It has become a perfect scandal. The people who get out are the rich, who can afford to employ solicitors.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is again discussing internment. I allowed him to give as his reason for objecting to the vote of this money, the internment policy of the Government; he is now discussing that policy, and that I cannot allow under this Vote. I am afraid I must be firm. The Chair must be obeyed; I cannot allow him to discuss the internment policy.

Mr. Wedgwood: On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. I am trying to say where this £375,000 goes to, and that the expenditure of the money is unnecessary. It is the wives and families of the people who have gone to Canada and Australia who are receiving this money, and I submit that I am absolutely and strictly in order in showing why we should not pass the Vote. This money is also being drawn upon by the wives and children of people who are interned at the present moment, many of them whose release has been promised but who have not been released. The hon. Member for Derby says, with perfect justice from his point of view, that we must vote this money in order that they may still receive charity. We do not want charity, neither do the internees. They do not want your £375,000; what they want is justice.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is again outside the bounds of Order. After all, the Government's internment policy is not under this Vote. It is a matter which can be raised only with the Home Secretary himself. The policy covering this Vote has been passed already by this House, and the principle is agreed to. It seems to me that internment matters are those which were raised on the Home Secretary's Vote, and not on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Wedgwood: I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I ask whether you have not perhaps made a mistake. You said the policy was agreed to, but it was agreed to on a Vote taken before the internment policy had been put into operation at all. We are now discussing this grant under entirely different circumstances. It is true we were at war in February, but there was no general internment policy and no exclusion from certain areas. The situation is entirely new, and I submit to you that I am in Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: Actually, we did not pass the Home Secretary's Vote


when this policy was finally passed, but a Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps thinking of a Supplementary Estimate of 22nd February last. Since then we have had another Supplementary Vote which carried on the policy to which this is a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Wedgwood: When the Home Secretary's Vote was taken we had certain definite promises for the reduction of the number of people in internment. Instead of that reduction, however, we have had just promises and a large number of expensive committees. We have had 494 people paid, I understand, on a time basis and not on piecework, who are stretching out the inquiries indefinitely. The circumstances are now entirely afferent. No longer have we the prospect of a short war, or possible invasion; instead the risks of invasion have decreased, and we had an intimation from the Prime Minister yesterday that the war is going to last until 1944. Surely even the Under-Secretary does not propose to go on with this subvention, and the policy which necessitates it, for another four years, keeping people unjustly in gaol when they might be earning their own living.

Earl Winterton: I know something about this matter, because I was one of those instrumental in getting this grant. It has nothing to do with the internment policy. It is to enable people for whom employment cannot be found to get some money. Otherwise, they would starve.

Mr. Wedgwood: I prefer to see people get justice rather than the dole. I know that the Noble Lord is responsible more than anybody else in this House for interning people, through his work in connection with refugees. The Noble Lord, no doubt, will be able to speak later in the Debate. I hope he will. The circumstances under which we are voting this money to-day are completely different from those when the original policy was decided and when we voted a definite grant in July and again in August. It was admitted then that the internment policy was largely induced by the fear of invasion, by stories—unsupported by any evidence—of the evil work of Jewish refugees in Holland. We had this fear of

invasion. No doubt it was a justifiable fear, but it was a panic as far as the internment of Jews is concerned.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have been very patient with the right hon. Gentleman. The internment policy and what arises from it cannot he discussed on this Vote. I must insist upon that.

Mr. Wedgwood: With all due deference, we are asked to vote a large sum of money. I am proposing to vote against it. I propose to give my reasons for objecting to that sum of money being paid. My reasons are that when we accepted the policy in February circumstances were completely different from what they are to-day. The risk of invasion is now far less. We realise that we are in for a much longer war.
This policy of internment, if continued indefinitely, will cost the country, on the basis of this Supplementary Estimate, £1,000,000 a year. I think it is a mistake to vote money for the perpetuation of such a policy. The policy was started more or less in a panic. We all know that the Home Office ever since has professed to be anxious to let the people out and to end the policy. We know now that there is no likelihood of any great release of these people. This £375,000 is being voted to keep them there for another six months—to the end of the financial year. I submit to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, with all due deference, that it is extremely material to this Vote whether we approve or not of the way the money is being spent.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has now said quite enough. He has explained why he proposes to vote against the Supplementary Estimate. To go further, and to discuss the policy which he has outlined, would be out of Order and not relevant to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman has said shortly why he proposes to vote against the Supplementary Estimate, and he must not develop his arguments any further.

Mr. Wedgwood: I do not understand a Ruling which graciously allows me, in this free House of Commons, to vote against a sum of money being granted, without explaining my reasons for doing so.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has given his reasons.

Mr. Wedgwood: Oh no, nothing like all of them.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chair rules that the right hon. Gentleman has given his reasons quite adequately.

Mr. Wedgwood: Am I to understand that you are calling upon me to resume my seat?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I do not call upon the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat; but I ask him not to continue the discussion on those lines.

Mr. Wedgwood: I will change the lines of the discussion. But I ask the Committee to think twice before voting this money. If they vote it, they will be perpetuating indefinitely a system of which I believe not one hon. Member in ten approves. If they vote against it, they will force the Home Office to reconsider the whole policy. This is the only opportunity we shall have to force the Government to change their policy. It is all very well for you, Colonel Clifton Brown, or for the Leader of the Opposition to say that we shall have an opportunity of debating this policy later on. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Government, pressed for time as they are, will give us this opportunity.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Leader of the Opposition. Could the Committee be informed who is the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Wedgwood: I meant the Leader of the Opposition for the time being. The hon. Gentleman who speaks from this side in reply to the Minister is generally accepted, in the peculiar circumstances in which we live, as being, for the time, the Leader of the Opposition. But I must not be led away into irrelevancy, although I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for making a point which I have often wanted to make myself. The question is, are we to vote this first instalment of what will be £1,000,000 a year, in order to keep people who could perfectly well keep themselves if the Home Office would change their policy and do something which we all know is desirable, but which they are afraid to do, because

they think that they would lose face if they admitted that they have made an expensive mistake and one that we cannot live up to. This £375,000 is not a large sum when we are considering an expenditure of millions a day. It is not the amount of the sum that I am considering. When I oppose it, I shall not be casting a vote to cause hardship to anyone. I register a vote—and I hope others will join me in doing so—against the policy of the Home Office, which makes this expenditure necessary.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know that I can go anything like as far as the right hon. Gentleman did when he said that he was against voting this money at all. The result of successfully opposing the Estimate would obviously be to deprive a great number of deserving people, who are suffering great misfortune, of any support at all. But the right hon. Gentleman's argument that this Supplementary Estimate has been necessitated, largely at any rate, by the change of Government policy, is one which appeals to me very strongly indeed. The Noble Lord pointed out that the purpose of the fund was to provide sustenance for those refugees who were unable, by their own efforts, to maintain themselves. Take the case of Mr. X, with a wife and perhaps one or two dependants. He is able, being in a job, to maintain himself and his family. He is no charge upon the fund. But take him away and put him in a camp at Huyton or in the Isle of Man, or deport him to Canada or to Australia, leaving his dependants at home without support, and promptly they become a charge upon the fund, [Interruption.] And, as is pointed out to me, they are not even allowed, by the conditions of their entry, to work and maintain themselves. Therefore, it seems that, at any rate, a large part of the Supplementary Estimate is directly due to a policy which, I think, has never had the support of a majority of this House. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how much of this Supplementary Estimate would have been rendered unnecessary if the speed which in the last Debate we were led to hope for—I do not say that there was a promise, as I do not think there was—had been maintained?

Mr. Peake: I cannot understand these references to a promise, or even an indication, in the last Debate on this subject


that releases from internment would be accelerated. The last Debate on this subject was on 22nd February, at which time only a few hundred Germans and Austrians had been interned, and those on grounds of security only.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to make a purely verbal point. My question was, how much of this Supplementary Estimate would have been necessary if the rate of release which, on the last occasion when we discussed internment, we were led to hope for, had been maintained? On 22nd August there was a Debate in this House about the Government's policy of internment. I am not discussing that—if I were, there are a great many things that I would like to say—but it was said in the course of the Debate that the Government's amended policy would lead to accelerated release. I do not think any figures were mentioned, but we were led to believe that there would be a considerable speeding up of all releases from internment camps. Suppose that the releases had been so speeded up—and we know that they have not—how much of the Supplementary Estimate would have been rendered unnecessary? Can the hon. Member tell us how many releases there have been, and to what extent the charge upon the fund has been reduced as a result of those releases? Much as I would regret voting against the grant of this money at all in these circumstances, we would like to be assured by the Government that if we do not oppose them on the Supplementary Estimate we are not thereby endorsing a policy of which I believe the House, by a majority, heartily disapproves. If the Supplementary Estimate is to be granted in these circumstances, may we have some indication whether it is really to be repaid? If it is true—as I think the right hon. Gentleman fully made out—that the Supplementary Estimate would not have been necessary at all but for the adoption of this new policy, we are entitled to hear from the Government what they propose to do about the maintenance of that new policy, having regard to the feeling that the Committee have expressed. I hope that the hon. Member will be able to assure the House that, if we grant this money on this occasion, the indications given during the last Debate on the internment of refugees will be better maintained than they have been so far, so that

it will be unlikely that the Government will have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate on these grounds again.

Earl Winterton: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) for interrupting him. I thought he gave way. I suggest that he raised what is entirely a false issue quite apart from the question of order. I would like to answer the very sincere speech made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) in three particulars. This policy, quite apart from the question of order, has nothing to do with the question of internment. I believe I am giving away no official secrets when I say that, when I was in the Government I, with others, pressed—because I was responsible for refugees—for a sustenance allowance for these people, many of whom were out of work. Bloomsbury House and other voluntary organisations, which do splendid work on behalf of refugees, recommended, through the organisation of which I am the head, that it was necessary to have some sustenance allowance, and consequently the Government granted it. Whether we have an internment policy or not, there are bound to be a great number of these unfortunate aliens out of work. I myself in my private capacity am employing alien refugees at this moment, but it is not possible to find employment for all. That is the answer to the first point which the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. Silverman: Does the Noble Lord realise that many of them are prohibited from working by the conditions under which they were allowed to come into the country?

Earl Winterton: That has nothing to do with what happened in February last, when, out of a very large number of aliens in this country, only a very few were interned. That was long before any question arose. That is where the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He may perhaps concede the first point I have made. He may say, "That may be so, but, as a result of your internment policy, you have put other people into prison or internment camps who otherwise might be employed." That is really not the case. On the contrary, several of the people who were interned were not in employment, and therefore the charge is lost by reason of the fact that they are interned.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is that on balance?

Earl Winterton: It is difficult to say, but I believe it to be the case.

Mr. Wedgwood: I got everybody out of internment except one man who happens to be a working man; he is an artisan, and I cannot get him out. He was engaged in making shelters at Birmingham and was earning £4 per week. He is still interned, and his wife and child are a burden on this country. Is not that a case in point?

Earl Winterton: It may be one case but it does not make a number, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has given personal examples, may I give my personal examples? I have refugees in my house. There is no question of any of them being detained at all. They are Belgian refugees. Several of them are highly skilled labourers—one in particular. I have been trying for a long time to obtain work for this particular man. There is no question of internment, but people do not like employing alien labour, even in the case of a Belgian. There are thousands of cases of that kind, and I do not believe that on balance there is much in it. It is probably the other way.

Mr. Silverman: How do you know that?

Earl Winterton: You can only take a general figure.

Mr. Silverman: Why do not the Government tell us?

Earl Winterton: They will presumably tell us when they give an answer. I take exception to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on behalf of the refugees. We had the greatest difficulty in getting money out of the Treasury for this purpose. This money has been obtained, and it has enabled thousands of unfortunate aliens who otherwise would be on the street to obtain work. Here is the right hon. Gentleman claiming to be the greatest friend of refugees and to speak on their behalf in this House, and yet he objects to this Vote the refusal of which would deprive these unfortunate people of this help.

Mr. Wedgwood: I do not like being charged with being inhuman. If these

people had not been maintained by the Jewish organisations, and if they had gone down Regent Street carrying placards saying, "I am a Jew. I am not allowed to work. I am starving," they would have been allowed to work honestly instead of living on charity.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the Committee, as I said at the beginning, that if we got on to the subject of internment it would open a very wide discussion.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry, but I would like to answer the right hon. Gentleman, who will persist in thinking—and nothing will ever get it out of his mind—that this is a Jewish problem. He is obsessed by the Jewish question. It hovers over his head. In his waking and sleeping hours there is only one question with which he is concerned, and that is the position of the Jews. I am sorry for the Jews, but I am more than sorry that they have the support of the right hon. Gentleman. Of all the calamities that have befallen this unfortunate race, I know of no one greater than that. This is not exclusively a Jewish problem. It is one of employment and not internment. I very much hope that the Committee will vote this money and enable to be carried on what is really a highly beneficent work and one which is necessary in the interests alike of refugees and of the general public.

Miss Rathbone: I am more in sympathy with the point of view—though that is unusual—of the Noble Lord on this particular question than with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Wedgwood) because I recognise that this grant is absolutely necessary. The discussion is a little futile in some respects because we recognise that the main reason why the refugee organisation threw themselves upon the Treasury was really the war itself. The majority of these refugees were brought to this country, under guarantees, in the expectation that they would be able within a few months to emigrate and become permanently settled overseas. But the war brought that expectation to an end. That is really the major consideration, and, apart from the internment policy and everything else, a Vote of this kind is necessary because of


the war. It is true that it is partly due to that policy that the sum is as large as it is. I am a member of the Central Committee which dispenses these funds, and when I first joined it I was surprised to find that the drain on the funds did not seem to diminish. I expected, after some 25,000 persons had been interned, a lightening of the burden on the refugee organisations and that they would stand much less in need of the Government grant. I soon learned that it was not so, because a large proportion of the persons who had formerly been earning their own living were now in internment, and their families and dependants had to be kept. What the refugee organisations had gained by having the support of a certain number of men taken off their shoulders when they were interned, they had lost because they had to undertake the maintenance of the families.
There is another point which I am rather surprised those who have so repeatedly stressed this question of internment have not mentioned. The sum is not only swollen by the Government's policy of internment, but also because of the policy in regard to unemployment. I entreat the Home Secretary to give his attention to the question as to whether the burden on the funds of the refugee organisations and on this grant cannot be lightened by adopting a more progressive and enlightened attitude towards the employment of aliens. I will mention one respect in which, I think, the policy is peculiarly retrogressive and unnecessarily cruel to the refugees. It is the driving of aliens out of protected areas. It is really preposterous that people who have been earning their living steadily for years and have not taken a penny out of the refugee organisation, and are known to everybody in their neighbourhood and are thoroughly trusted, should be driven out and obliged to live miserably on a pitiful allowance out of the grant we are giving to-day.
I know doctors among that precious, small, select few who have been permitted by the British Medical Association to establish practices in this country. I have a particular case in mind which is typical. It is that of a young man who has built up a practice in Liverpool. His wife is a very experienced masseuse. They are known to everybody. The man was interned, and when he was released

he was told he must return not to Liverpool, where he had built up his practice, but to a little Northumberland village, where he lived for about a week when he first came to England. There are scores of cases like that, in regard to one of which I propose to ask a question on a subsequent occasion. The man fought on our side during the last war. He has lived in Plymouth for 18 years and is a waiter. During the last four months he has been moved four times from one area to another. First he was in the port of Plymouth where he lived for 18 years. Then he was told by the chief constable to go to Torquay and get a job and from there he was ordered to Barnstaple and from there to Frome. This poor working man had to move his household four times from one area to another.
This is the kind of stupidity by which we are increasing the problem and burden of refugees and I submit that the Home Secretary should seriously consider whether Chief Constables are really the best persons to judge in questions of this kind. Does the training of a Chief Constable make him a particularly good judge of international issues and whether a person is or is not the right person to live in a certain area? I could give instances of how industries which have been established with Government money, such as those with trained alien lumberjacks and agricultural workers, have been ordered to leave a protected area just when they have got going. People talk about "security first." By all means let us have security first but let us put a little common sense into our interpretation of security and not "chivy" these people about all over Great Britain. The policy of internment, I am sure, takes second place only to the sheer stupidity of the policy adopted in the protected areas and on the question of employment. This policy about aliens has been worked up by people in authority who ought to know better—employment exchange officials and, above all, Chief Constables. Let us give all these people an opportunity of renewing their living so that in time we shall be able to give up this grant altogether.

Mr. Wedgwood: Did I hear the hon. Lady say that she preferred the arguments and attitude of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) to mine? This is the result of a University training. The whole of her arguments


were arguments which really might have been made by me—

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): The right hon. Gentleman must address the Chair and not individual Members.

Mr. Wedgwood: I will do so, but I still say that the arguments used by the hon. Lady were precisely the arguments used by myself and my hon. Friend behind me. I moved to reduce this Vote by £100 in order to take the only opportunity we have of emphasising how much this Committee disapproves both of the Government's internment policy and the method by which it has been carried out. I am perfectly certain the hon. Lady agrees with me and that if she followed her conscience she would vote with me, instead of satisfying the Government Front Bench and being led into the Lobby by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham. We say that the Government is clearly wasting £375,000 which ought not to be spent, or found by the British taxpayer. They ought to adopt the policy of allowing these people to work, especially at a time when we want London cleared up. Jews are prevented from doing this clearing up; they are allowed to join the A.M.P.C. but every obstacle is put in their way. They would give their right hands to be of some use to this country at the present moment but they are refused. Hundreds of thousands of them are interned.
Really, the Committee must understand what these people are feeling. They have been robbed by Hitler of everything—their property, their future and their fathers; indeed, of everything except their family life and we have here the British Government and the Under-Secretary in particular—I cannot believe that this is the policy of the Home Secretary—robbing them of this family life. The taxpayers of this country are charged with keeping them in internment. It is not a policy which anybody in this Committee can envisage as continuing year after year as the war goes on. These people are perfectly innocent, yet they are put in prison indefinitely. I know we are told that there are committees appointed to go into each of these cases and that they are considering these cases. They have appointed up to 1st September—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. It has been previously ruled that we are not at liberty to discuss internment policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman to be permitted in a second speech—he was ruled out at least six times during his first speech—to discuss this matter? If so I shall have to try and catch your eye, Sir Lambert, in order to answer him. I do not, however, think he is in Order.

Mr. Wedgwood: Every word of this speech has been in reply to the hon. Lady who has just sat down. If I am out of Order then she was out of Order. I moved a reduction of the Vote in order to register disagreement with the policy and I say that I cannot be out of Order. I know the way in which the Government and their two Chief Whips—

The Temporary-Chairman: I was not in the Chair when the original Ruling was given, but on reading the Supplementary Estimate and listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that he is going very much wider than did the hon. Lady who preceded him. I understand it has been ruled that the policy itself is not under discussion and I must, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal only with the question which arises on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Wedgwood: The question of policy is the only question I am discussing. I am moving the reduction in order to get the opinion of the Committee on the policy for which the money is being voted. I know that the Chief Whips on the two sides rig these Debates and try to prevent free discussion. [Interruption.] Well, I will withdraw the word "rig" and substitute the word "arrange." They arrange these Debates as a sort of sideshow in order to get on with further Votes. We are a free assembly here and I move a perfectly legitimate reduction. It is true it is not on the Paper but we cannot get things on the Paper now-adays—

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman evidently wants to point out that he intends to divide on an issue which is not included in the Estimates at all.

Mr. Wedgwood: This Vote is for that purpose. If it was not for these people being interned they would be able to earn good wages and keep their families.
Instead of that they are not allowed to earn wages and we have to keep them.
Am I not in Order in saying—

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is in Order but when he attempts to prove the reason why he intends to divide, then I must stop him.

Mr. Wedgwood: Well, I think you have given me a very good chance.

Mr. Noel-Baker: About an hour and a half ago my right hon. Friend said that if we agreed to this Vote it would be because there were members of the Labour party who always preferred charity to justice. That is a suggestion which never should have been made. If the right hon. Gentleman would face the facts he would know that the rejection of this Vote would mean the dissolution of the voluntary organisations, and disaster to refugees and would not influence the Government's policy to the slightest degree. I agree that the Government's policy needs revision, and I am sure that we e ought to have an early debate on the whole question of refugee and internment policy. We have a new Minister and circumstances have changed but it would be most unsatisfactory to have such a debate now in the remaining minutes of a crowded afternoon, when the Home Secretary has made no preparation and, indeed, is not even here. I hope my right hon. Friend will not waste the time of the House; if he does I shall vote against him, and I hope that many of my friends will do the same, and I shall give that vote hoping that the Government will have a debate on the whole policy in the near future.

Mr. Hicks: I support the proposal to grant the money and I would like to inform the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) that it is mere assumption to say that if a man were at liberty he would he able to work at his trade. A large number of Britishers are unemployed, all trying to find work; in every branch of industry there are unemployed. The trade union movement takes no second place in trying to assist refugees. They have done so for years, but merely to say that if a man is released from an internment camp he can go to work straight away, is far from facing the facts.

Mr. Peake: Two or three points on which I did not touch in my opening speech have been raised in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) interrupted my original remarks to ask about emigration. I did not deal with that matter because it is only indirectly relevant to the granting of this money. The position is that the United States of America grant immigration visas on the basis of affidavits given by relatives and friends of the refugees resident in the United States, and the intending immigrants must depend upon them, or upon their friends in this country, to arrange for their journey to the United States of America. So far as the administrative expenses connected with immigration are concerned, the position is that the Emigration Department of the Central Office for Refugees is, of course, constantly engaged in finding new openings in foreign countries, securing employment for the refugees in their new countries, and putting the refugees into touch with committees abroad similar to those which exist here. In so far as those expenses are concerned, they will rank for the 75 per cent. grant which is part of the money being voted to-day.
Several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have spoken about employment, and it has been said, or apparently understood, that there is some ban upon the employment of aliens as such. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who think there is such a ban are under a complete misapprehension. The ban on the employment of aliens generally was lifted in November, 1939, and except for a specified group of industries—war industries, munitions, and so forth—in which there is a security aspect, any alien can register at the employment exchange and can obtain a job, always provided that there is no British subject available for it. The only way in which one could increase the employment of aliens at the present time, apart from the internment policy, with which I will deal in a few minutes, would be by giving a preference to aliens over British subjects.

Mr. Wedgwood: Why not allow them to work in their own shops?

Miss Rathbone: Is the Under-Secretary's statement true as regards the protected areas, where many aliens could get jobs


without interfering with British workers? The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the exception in the case of war industries, but it is in those jobs that men are wanted. There are plenty of industries that want men, but they are just the industries which aliens cannot enter.

Mr. Peake: There is no ban on aliens taking a job in any industry, however important to our war effort the industry may be, but for certain groups of industries a special permit has to be obtained.

Earl Winterton: Will my hon. Friend answer the point as to whether or not the authority does not rest to too great an extent with the local police authorities and not with the Home Office? Will he sympathetically consider this very important matter of the Home Office being the deciding factor?

Mr. Peake: I was about to deal with that question, which is separate from the question of the permission to aliens to take employment. It is the question of the protected areas. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee must be aware of the very strong feeling about aliens throughout the country especially during the past Summer months. The feeling about them varied inversely in proportion to the distance of the locality from the coast. The feeling against aliens in coastal districts, and particularly in the neighbourhood of dockyards, ports and so on, was very strong indeed at that time. It is the case that that feeling is to a considerable extent modified at the present time, but nobody can say—

Mr. Wedgwood: It never existed in North Staffordshire.

Mr. Peake: That is not one of the coastal districts.

Mr. Wedgwood: I live there.

Mr. Peake: That feeling is modified to a considerable degree at the present time, but nobody can say that it will not become very acute again if the danger of invasion recurs. At the same time, I will take note of what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have said, and the question of the protected areas will be considered in the light of the Debate that has taken place to-day. It is obvious that in principle we must leave the operation of these

Orders very largely to chief constables, who are much more familiar with the local feeling about aliens than anybody at the Home Office can be.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman say that on account of local feeling people ought to be detained, imprisoned and deported, even where the local feeling has no justification?

Mr. Peake: I was not talking about internment or deportation, but about whether or not aliens should be allowed to reside and remain in certain areas. The local feeling about aliens is a very important factor in deciding that question.

Mr. Silverman: How is it tested?

Mr. Wedgwood: Surely, the fact that people in a certain locality dislike a group of persons is not a reason for sending those persons to prison. The majority of people in this country may dislike me, but that is not a reason for sending me to prison. The majority of people certainly do not like the Communists, but we do not want the Communists to be put in prison.

Mr. Peake: I am dealing, not with the question of internment, imprisonment or deportation, but with the protected areas, and where we shall allow and where we shall not allow aliens to reside. One very important factor in making a decision is the feeling in the locality at the time. In that matter the advice and opinion of chief constables is of very great use to the authorities.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to press the point further, but it is really important. I find myself in sympathy with my hon. Friends on this side. I do not want to make any charge against chief constables, but I could give examples of most astonishing discrepancies between the treatment in two adjoining countries. I refuse to believe that it is based on any attempt to ascertain public opinion, To put it quite frankly, it is based upon the individual opinion of particular chief constables. I suggest that in this and other matters the Home Office must be a little firmer with these gentlemen, and that in time of war the Home Office should be the controlling authority.

Mr. Peake: I have already given an assurance that what has been said in the Debate will be taken note of, and I can tell the Noble Lord further that this


matter has been the subject of discussions that have been proceeding for some time past with chiefs of police and the security services.
I pass now to the speeches that have been made in support of the Amendment to reduce the Vote which was moved by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and supported by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). It is, of course, out of Order, as you, Sir Dennis, and your successor in the Chair ruled, to discuss the policy of internment, but it is, I think, in Order to consider the effects of that policy upon the amount of money required for this Vote. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in stating his reasons for moving the Amendment to reduce the Vote, seemed to hold the view that the amount of money required by the Vote would be very much smaller if the policy of internment had not been pursued. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne seemed to think the same thing. The facts of the situation directly controvert that view. The actual peak of the financial charges upon these organisations was reached before the policy of general internment was adopted, and the amount of money spent on maintenance has declined, and declined substantially, since the general internment policy was adopted in June. If the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters behind him seek to show that our policy, in June, was wrong, then, if we had followed the policy of which they approve, we should have to-day to vote a very much larger sum for the maintenance of refugees.

Mr. Wedgwood: The Under-Secretary has taken up a magnificent position—we are saving money by putting people in prison. Does he really believe that because we have people in prison without work we are doing that?

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman thinks we should require less money under this Vote if we had riot followed a particular policy in the month of June. He has made two long speeches based on that premise; his premise is, in fact, hopelessly wrong and the absolute reverse is the case. The facts prove that we should require more money under this Vote had we gone on as we did in the early months of last year. Therefore, I think, the Committee can be assured that not only, is

this money required to enable these excellent voluntary organisations to carry on their good work, but that it is a smaller sum than would be required if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was carried.

Mr. McEntee: I want to stress the need for a modification of the powers of chief constables. They act in an entirely different way in different areas. I have a case which I have sent to the Minister for his consideration. It is that of a Dutchman who for about 28 years has ben living in Rom-ford, which is not too close to the sea. This man has been sent out of the district into another area with no money, and the friends he has left behind in the trade union to which he belongs, and to which I belong, are aiding him in his effort to live in a place where he cannot get work. He had plenty of work in Romford before he was turned out. There is no justification for the treatment of a man in circumstances like that. I have heard it stated by chief constables, "I am not taking any risk in the matter. I might make a mistake in letting a fellow stop. I am clearing out all the aliens." They are afraid they may make a mistake, and rather than do that they are ready to clear all of them out. I hope some instructions will be given to chief constables so that a uniform policy can be adopted in the case of people who have lived a lifetime in this country, who are not enemy aliens, but friendly aliens.

Mr. Wedgwood: Mr. Wedgwood rose—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is it really in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to prove such a menace to Parliamentary government by preventing—

The Chairman: The hon. Member wishes to put a point of Order. He must put it as a point of Order, and must not introduce other matters.

Mr. Hogg: I must apologise for putting it in that way. But is it really in Order for a right hon. Member again and again to intervene in debates, thereby preventing other Members from speaking?

The Chairman: The hon. Member has, I think, put his question. The answer is in the affirmative. It is in Order.

Mr. Wedgwood: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) must be a very


new Member of this House not to realise that every Member during a Committee stage is allowed to speak as often as he chooses.

The Chairman: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not try to gild the lily.

Mr. Wedgwood: I want to put two questions to the Under-Secretary before we vote. He omitted saying anything about the unfortunate wives who are waiting in London to go out to Australia or Canada. They have thrown up their jobs and have been waiting to go for about four months. Is it not possible for them, either to be told they cannot go so they can get work, or that they can go? My second point is that I wish to know how much of this £375,000 goes for administrative purposes. For instance, is Sir Herbert Emerson's salary made out of this sum, and are the costs of the Committee out of this Fund?

The Chairman: I am not sure that I can allow the Minister to reply to that question.

Mr. Peake: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that Sir Herbert Emerson does not receive any salary. Therefore it will not fall to be charged on this Fund. I think I had better communicate to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the other point he raised, about the wives.

Mr. Wedgwood: What about the committees?

Mr. Peake: I did explain very fully in my opening remarks this question of administrative expenses which are to be checked by the Emerson Committee. Seventy-five per cent. of the expenses are to be borne out of this sum.

Amendment negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £375,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, subordinate offices, liquidation expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, contributions towards the expenses of Probation, and a grant in aid of the Central Committee for Refugees.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £86,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health, including grants, a grant in aid and other expenses in connection with housing, certain grants to local authorities, etc., a grant in aid to the National Radium Trust, grants in aid in respect of national health insurance benefits, etc., certain expenses in connection with widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions; a grant in aid of the Civil Service Sports Council; a grant in aid of camps; and other services.

Mr. Hicks: Would it be possible to have a Debate on this Vote on a subsequent date as there will be little time left to-day after the Minister has made his statement?

Mr. Mander: I should like to join in that appeal. If it could be arranged to debate the Vote on Report, it would meet the convenience of the House generally. The only point that occurs to one is whether a discussion then could be as wide as it would be at present. Possibly extra latitude might be allowed.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I do not know whether it would be possible, if I made my statement now in order to get the Committee stage of the Vote, for the Debate on Report to be wide enough to suit hon. Members who have come prepared to make their contribution to-day. I am not certain what the width of the Debate on Report in those circumstances would be.

The Chairman: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is appealing to me for some advice on the subject, but I suggest, if that is the general wish, that the best thing would be to pass the Vote without any discussion at all, that is to say, without even the Minister's opening statement. Then, no doubt, it would be open to a full debate on Report.

Mr. MacDonald: That suits me entirely. If we get the Committee stage, we will postpone the discussion until the Report stage next week.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting day.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, the sum of £1,011,663,500 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting day.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the under-mentioned areas, viz.:—

(1) the City of Sheffield,
(2) the City of Lincoln,
(3) the County Borough of Northampton,
(4) the Urban District of Beaconsfield,
(5) the Urban District of Paignton,
(6) the Urban District of Hornsea,
(7) The Urban District of Rayleigh (Ward of Rayleigh),
(8) the Rural District of Eton (Parish of Gerrards Cross),
(9) the Rural District of Welwyn,

copies of which were presented to this House on 5th November, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

LOSS OF H.M.S. "GLORIOUS."

Mr. Stokes: I have given notice of my intention to raise certain matters concerning the sinking of H.M.S. "Glorious" in June last, with her two attendant destroyers. I am not raising this point in order to use it as a stick wherewith to beat Ministers or naval officers, but because I regard it as a matter of duty to the House and particularly to many relatives of the people who

lost their lives in that accident and survivors, some of whom have provided me with facts and information. What I am doing may not commend itself to the First Lord but, as a good Parliamentarian, he would agree that higher considerations than the convenience of Ministers must control our actions otherwise it would be impossible to criticise anyone with whom one was on friendly relations. As I understand it, as a junior Member of the House, our duty is when public opinion is disturbed, to investigate what has happened, and, if the reasons for the disturbance of public opinion are groundless, public opinion becomes at once reassured. If, on the other hand, there are grounds for disturbance, it is right that we and the public should know that proper action has been taken. This process may be inconvenient for Ministers, but I am sure the First Lord will be the first to recognise that while Ministers naturally get the praise when things go well, they have to put up with the disagreeables when they occur.
It is idle to deny that public opinion has been disturbed by the loss of the "Glorious" and with regard to certain other events in which the Admiralty are concerned. I submit that the House should not stay its hand in its investigation of the matter merely on account of a feeling circulated in the Lobby that it is unfair to take this matter up because the captain died. I do not know whether the captain is to blame or not. I take it that the First Lord will tell us. It is fair, however, that his name should be cleared once and for all if it was no fault of his that the "Glorious" went down. If it was his fault, there is no disgrace attached to him. When people get court-martialed they may get the blame for accidents, but there is no question of dishonour in the blame. If the captain's death is claimed as an excuse for not giving publicity and investigation to the matter, my excuse is that 1,200 gallant men went down at the same time and their relatives have a right to know what happened. Again, some people will say that the bereaved will be distressed at this Debate. That is not my experience from the letters I have had, and they have been numerous. What is upsetting people is the thought that facts have been burked and hidden in order to protect people in high places. I do not know


whether that is so, but the First Lord will no doubt clear up the point. It might not have been in the public interest to discuss this matter three or four months ago, but what is there now which is not already known to the German High Command? It is a matter of old history and there is no reason why the facts should not become known. What is more likely to impress the German High Command—a rather bewildered Admiralty which is afraid of facing the facts, or an Admiralty which is so serene and confident that it is prepared to face the facts knowing that they have the matter in hand? If anything was wrong let the bereaved have the satisfaction of knowing what happened and of knowing that something has been done to prevent anything of the kind happening again.
I will endeavour to say nothing which would be of use to the enemy. So far as I know the "Glorious" was engaged in the relief of Narvik. I appreciate that it was a delicate and difficult operation and that secrecy was essential, but there are certain questions I want to put to the First Lord. The first is whether he is entirely satisfied that the proper instructions and the best that could have been devised were issued to the ship? Second, I understand that while at first it was rumoured that the ship was sunk by the "Gneisenau" and "Scharn-horst," I gather from other sources that that was not the case. It appears that cruisers of the "Hipper" class were engaged, and if that is so they must have been absent from their base seven days to come in as they did. Did the Admiralty know the movements of those ships, or was the Intelligence once again at fault? Third, the Grand Fleet under Admiral Sir Charles Forbes was within 800 miles of the incident. Did the admiral know generally of the movement of the ship and were his dispositions, even if he did not, such that he could give did if the ship met disaster? Fourth, when and at what hour did the "Glorious" sink, and were any signals received by the Admiral of the Grand Fleet or other high naval officers, and, if so, what action was taken? Fifth, has the court of inquiry, which presumably was fully mindful of the accident to the "Courageous," reported that an escort of two destroyers was sufficient for the "Glorious,"

engaged as she was on that particular operation? If two destroyers were insufficient why were not extra precautions taken to look after her? I know there were other things going at the same time and a great demand for light craft on the coast of France, but recognising that it may have been impossible for a full escort to be there, was it not all the more important that extra steps should have been taken to protect her?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I do not think that the hon. Member will accuse me of being unduly subservient to the present Government, but I would ask him to think twice before he presses for answers to most of his questions.

Mr. Stokes: I am putting the questions, and I will leave the First Lord to decide whether he can answer them. I am not doing any harm to the country or our cause by asking the questions. I am no authority on naval matters, and I do not press for answers to anything which the First Lord considers it not advisable to give in the interests of the country.
Another question I wish to ask is whether the Operations Division and other appropriate divisions of the Admiralty were informed fully by the Chief of Naval Staff of the movement of the ship? Was the Air Marshal commanding the Coastal Command told? I have been told he was not. Was the Vice-Admiral in charge of submarines told? I am told not. Was the admiral commanding aircraft carriers told? I assume that the court must have gone into these points. Another point, if not properly cleared up, might reflect on the gallant captain. It was said that the "Glorious" had not got her own reconnaisance flight up. I have understood the ship was engaged in relieving aircraft from Narvik and that her deck, being cluttered up with an extra amount of aircraft, it was impossible for her own flight to go up and unlikely, if it was, that she could have got them back.
I come to the most tragic part of this story. From the three vessels that went down apparently there were only 39 survivors. Is it true, as was stated in the Press—I have cuttings of interviews with survivors—that 1,000 and more men were on rafts for three nights and two days? I know the ship was out of touch, but it is said they did not see or hear anybody in that time, and what survivors


there were were picked up by a Norwegian steamer. I ask whether they had been searched for. I suppose that if we did not know that the ship went down nothing could be done, but I hope with all my heart that that is not the case, and that the First Lord can reassure us on the point. It is no use saying that this is an unkind and unfair thing to bring up, because whether I raise it in the House or not people will go on saying these things, and the sooner the matter is cleared up once and for all the better.
I would also refer to an answer given to me the other day by the Parliamentary Secretary. He replied to me, with his invariable courtesy—and I have had many battles with him in the various departments with which he has been associated—but he more or less said that I had implied that the Admiralty knew all these people were knocking about on rafts and had left them there. Honestly I hope that he did not really mean it, because I feel that is a thing which even a member of the German Reichstag could hardly accuse any of their own crowd of doing. Then I understand that these rafts were not supplied with adequate lights. If that be the case it is disgraceful. Here we are, after more than a year of war, and a big ship like this, known to be the most vulnerable type of vessel in the Navy, I believe, is inadequately supplied with proper rafts.
There is a point with regard to the privileges of Members of this House to which I must refer in view of the rather Gestapo methods of the Minister of Labour this afternoon. I learned the names of one or two of the survivors, and got in touch with one of the officers and I was astonished to learn from him that he had had instructions—well, here is the telegram he sent me:
Regret unable to see you, Admiralty instructions.
It seems to me very wrong that that should he the case. I would not have raised the point but for the fact that the Minister of Labour has taken the same line, and I am against the Gestapo, whether they are members of my party or not. I strongly resent having received that telegram.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No doubt the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars

of the incident—who is the officer and who sent the instructions.

Mr. Stokes: If I am asked to furnish the name, I must ask the First Lord whether I can have an absolute and definite assurance that the person concerned will not get into trouble, because unless he gives me that assurance I cannot accede to his request.

Mr. Alexander: Obviously, no reply can be given to the implied charge which has been made unless I know the facts. I certainly undertake, at all times, when a matter is raised in the House bona fide by a Member, that it shall be investigated without any penalty attaching to the subject of the investigation.

Mr. Stokes: As long as that assurance is given I will gladly furnish the First Lord with the information. Of course I shall first have to ask the officer's permission. I only got the telegram the day before yesterday. There are one or two other matters which have caused uneasiness in the public mind with regard to the Naval Staff. It began with the "Courageous," where it appears that something was very much amiss. We were told there was to be a court of inquiry or court-martial. I want to ask what was the result of that court of inquiry? Then there was the case of the "Royal Oak"—profoundly disturbing. It was with great amazement that public learned that a submarine had penetrated the important base of Scapa. There, again, regretfully, 800 men were drowned, mostly clogged with oil, with other units of the Fleet not far off. It seems inconceivable that something was not wrong with the Admiralty or the Naval Staff, and I should like to know what disciplinary action was taken. Then we had the shocks of Norway. The German Navy took incredible risks in circumstances which were extremely favourable to us and got away with it. On 11th April the Prime Minister said in this House:
All German ships in the Skaggerak and the Kattegat will be sunk, and by night all ships will be sunk, as opportunity serves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1940; col. 748, Vol. 359.]
They were not, and the fact that Norway was a disaster led to the fall of the last Government. The First Lord became Prime Minister, but the Naval Staff


remained unchanged. Then there was the inconclusive action at Oran. Whatever one's personal view may be of that particular incident, it enabled the escape of the "Strasburg" and the retention by France of a large number of her smaller craft and her light cruisers, of which we shall probably hear more. Then there was the Dakar fiasco, which we all regret, with the passage of the French cruisers through the Straits of Gibraltar. A rumour has reached me that the Admiral-in-charge at Gibraltar has not even got steam up. If that is so, I should like to know what disciplinary action has been taken. I would remind the House that all this while the Naval Staff remained unchanged, and apparently it is to go on for ever. Finally, there was the loss of the "Empress of Britain" and our other mercantile shipping losses. I am not going to say much about them, but in talking to men of the Mercantile Marine I gather that some of them criticise our present convoy policy, and I should like to ask the First Lord whether he is satisfied that the policy adopted is the right one. Is it not possible that perhaps we are a little too much afraid of bombs from the air?
I know that I am not competent to criticise in naval matters. I am merely trying to state facts and to ask questions. I am not in the least unmindful of the good things that the Navy has done—at the River Plate and in the Mediterranean—which augurs well—the work of the submarine patrols, the mine-sweeping, the protection of convoys, and the numerous operations which keep our ships safe and the shipping coming in and out of our harbours, and particularly the guarding of transports and convoys. I have not a word to say against what I would call, though the expression may be un-Parliamentary, "the guts of the business," because there are no finer naval men anywhere in the world than ours, but it is on the administration and planning side that I feel there is something which requires a certain amount of explaining. I would remind the First Lord that if I have raised the question of the Navy Staff that does not mean that one does not recognise the tremendous devotion to duty of those officers, and, of course, of the First Lord himself. Having

chosen his advisers I know the First Lord will gallantly defend them to the last ditch, but I would remind him that however much that may be desirable from the departmental point of view he has a duty to the country as well. I know he will not ignore it, though one realises that there must be great comradeship between himself and the Staff, hearing as they do all the shocks and burdens of the day in administering the affairs of the whole of the Navy. But the main point is that if confidence is to be maintained the facts must bear examination, and we ought to be allowed to examine the facts.
I have tried to confine myself to facts, and I hope and believe that the First Lord will give adequate replies to those points with which he deals without any danger to the welfare of the country, and if that be so we shall go away feeling renewed confidence in the Admiralty. I know that the First Lord is an experienced politician and debater, and that I am a mere novice, and that he could perfectly well have a Parliamentary holiday at my expense this afternoon; but that would not help 1,200 dead men and their suffering relatives, and I ask him to accept my statement that in raising these points I have felt that I was doing my duty, as I see it, in good faith, and I hope that he will answer me accordingly, even if I am also to get a stiff naval wigging.

Commander Bower: Time is very short this afternoon, and I shall have to cut my remarks to a minimum. I have just come back from three months at sea, engaged on convoy work. Before that I was naval liaison officer to the Commander-in-Chief of the R.A.F. Coastal Command, in constant touch with the Operations Staff at the Admiralty—almost daily touch. I would like to confirm everything said by the hon. Member who has just spoken. In the course of my duty, I came into touch with the Admiralty and, in the early part of June, I was approached by a number of officers on the Operations Staff at the Admiralty. I do not mean silly young officers, but officers who were, for the most part, between the ages of 40 and 50, holding responsible positions. I can assure the House that, at that time, there was grave disquiet not only about the episode which we are now discussing but about the whole conduct of naval


operations in Norway from the point of view of the higher command.
Naturally I feel very diffident at raising these matters in the House, but I can assure hon. Members that I shall in no way disclose anything which may be of assistance to the enemy. Five months have now elapsed since this not inconsiderable disaster took place. Considerations of secrecy are no longer operative, except for one reason, and that is to conceal the deficiencies of high officers. The officers to whom I have already referred urged me, some of them individually and some collectively. They gave me a definite request that I should raise the matter on the Floor of the House of Commons. I think hon. Members will agree with me that I adopted a right attitude when I refused at once. I said that it would be quite indefensible for me, as an officer serving on the naval staff, to use information which I got in the course of my duties in order to bring up such matters in this House. I am not so sure now that I was right, after what has happened, but at any rate, I did refuse. I told them I could not do it, but, I added: "There is one thing I can do. As a Member of Parliament I have the privilege and constitutional right of access to every Minister of the Crown." I think hon. Members agree with me that I have that right. I said: "I will see the First Lord of the Admiralty."
It happened that the First Lord was fully occupied. As a matter of fact, he was at Bordeaux. I myself in those strenuous days of evacuation from Dunkirk and after was fully occupied with my naval duties. I could not see the First Lord, but I wrote him a letter in which I pointed out the grave concern which was felt among many responsible members of the naval staff at the conduct of the operations in Norway and in connection with the loss of the "Glorious." The fact was that the evacuation of Narvik was considered, for reasons hitherto undisclosed, of such a secret nature that none but the higher officers were informed that it was to take place. Naturally an operation of that sort would, in normal circumstances, involve the closest co-operation between the staffs of the Admiralty, the R.A.F. Coastal Command, Vice-Admiral Commanding Submarines and other high officers. Such co-

operation never took place. I can give my personal word for that. I was myself on duty at the Coastal Command at the time. We knew nothing about it. I have no time to go into the details, but the fact is that this ship was sunk and those lives were lost and even such highly placed officers as the Director of Operations at the Admiralty knew nothing about it.

Mr. Alexander: What was it that the Director of Operations knew nothing about?

Commander Bower: I am prepared to tell the First Lord that the Director of Operations was not informed, according to what he told me, at the time fully, as to what was happening in connection with the evacuation of Narvik. Certain it is that the Operations Staff at the Coastal Command R.A.F. of which I was a member, did not know. Certain it is that all the junior members of the Operations Staff at the Admiralty, whose duty it would have been to provide the plans, did not know either. I know full well that what my hon. Friend has described as Gestapo methods have been applied to those officers since, as indeed they have been applied to me, as I shall show in a minute. Those officers have their careers to think of, but I have not. I can speak openly
I wrote this letter to the First Lord. Far from realising that I had acted with discretion and with forbearance in raising the matter privately he sent for me and told me he took the greatest exception to the letter, for various reasons. I protested. I said that as a Member of Parliament I had an absolute, not a relative, privilege to write him such a letter, whether I was a serving officer or not. He contested that. He said it was not so. He argued for a while. He then became very friendly. He said: "This has put me in a very difficult position, vis-à-vis the Sea Lords." I asked him why, and he then admitted that he had shown my letter to the First Sea Lord. I do not think that was a very proper proceeding, to show a letter from a Member of Parliament, writing in his capacity as an M.P., to a Minister. He then said, "Look here, this has put me in a very awkward position. Naturally, these fellows do not like having you at coastal command with access to the Admiralty. Will you accept


another appointment?" I replied, "Certainly."
He said, "I would like you to accept an appointment at sea," and I replied, "Certainly, only too delighted." The House will remember that we were faced with imminent invasion. To cut a long story short, he offered me an appointment. Acting on his description of that appointment, which description subsequently turned out to be what I can only describe as a false prospectus, I accepted. He asked me whether I would go to do an anti-submarine course and I said "Yes." I went down there. When I got there I found a lot of my old naval friends who, when they heard that I had been appointed to this position said, "What on earth are you doing there? It is a most inferior command." I replied, "The First Lord has promised me that the new command will be every bit as good as my last appointment," but I was a little anxious about the matter.
I then came back to the Admiralty, where I found exactly the same thing. In the Anti-Submarine Department of the Admiralty the officers said, "Why are you going to a command of this description? These corvettes are to be commanded by lieutenants R.N.R. and R.N.V.R." This information upset me. I had another interview with the First Lord, when he again assured me that he had my interests at heart and that I was in no way being victimised. Not until I got to my command, and was safely away doing 10 days at sea and three days in harbour did I discover that what the First Lord said was entirely wrong and what my friends said in the Navy was entirely right. In other words, a Member of Parliament was victimised for expressing certain opinions, which in my view he had a perfect right to express, about the conduct of those operations.
I hope I have not appeared too unduly personal in this matter. I have no desire to raise a personal issue. I have no personal grievance, because at all times I was free to come back to my Parliamentary duties, which I have now done. The point is that there was, and is still, on the naval staff, and throughout the Navy, a feeling of grave disquiet as to the conduct of those operations. One of the people much criticised in the Navy has gone, the late Commander-in-Chief

of the Home Fleet. I will say nothing about him, but at the present moment there is definite disquiet about the Board of Admiralty as a whole. I dislike saying this, but after all I expressed it privately to the First Lord, and all I got was victimisation. There is grave disquiet in regard to the Board of Admiralty collectively and especially about the First Sea Lord.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without question put.
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Commander Bower: I dislike saying what I am going to say, because I served with the First Sea Lord years ago when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) was Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, when the First Sea Lord was Chief of Staff and I was a junior member of the staff of the Mediterranean at that time. There was no finer man in the world. However, there is such a thing as anno domini. He is 63. He is not in the best of health, and everybody who knows him says the same thing, that he is not the man that he was. I leave it there and I will say no more about that. In this war, when we are fighting for our lives, when in the Army and the Air Force we have got rid of those who are perhaps not quite competent enough, very often from no fault of their own, why this miasma, this fog of secrecy which can have only one object, to conceal the deficiency of senior officers? Nothing which could come out now could possibly supply information to the enemy which they have not got already. Yet only the other day a question was asked and the Financial Secretary gave a reply which again suggested that it was outrageous that there should be any criticism of any superior officer or anybody at the Admiralty. I affirm once more, from my own experience, that there has been and is that criticism.
I have referred to a personal episode that would normally have been raised by me as a matter of privilege. In present times, I hope the House will agree with me, that would be undesirable, but at the same time I want to have placed on


record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House what has happened and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman if he has one. Also, I propose to take certain steps and inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister of what has happened. From the point of view of Members of this House who are serving in the Armed Forces, I want to read out something which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty wrote to me. This is the issue between us, and this is what I contest. He says:
It is true that any Member of Parliament has, on the question of privilege, the right to approach a Minister, but it is also true, as I have already explained to you, that a Minister then has the right to judge the merits of the subject of the approach.
Put into plain language, that simply means that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty contends that any Member who is serving in the Armed Forces has the right to write to him, but that having done so he has a right to victimise him as if he were not a Member of Parliament. I cannot let that pass, and that is why to-day I have mentioned what may appear to be a personal matter. To return to the main subject of this Debate, it is no use the First Lord of the Admiralty getting up and saying that there has been and is no disquiet in the Admiralty. I am not the only officer who has been made the subject of these Gestapo methods. I would say this in conclusion: We in this country are not fighting against Hitler in order to set up the First Lord of the Admiralty as a little pinchbeck Himmler with a tinpot Gestapo.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) informed us that he had been approached by various serving officers of the Navy with these grievances and criticising their superior officers. I should like if possible to get this perfectly clear. As I conceive it, the case stands thus: If a serving officer chooses to approach his own representative, that is to say the Member of Parliament who sits for his constituency, that is perfectly proper and in accordance with tradition and practice. What I think he should not allow is this: If any Member of Parliament is running a stunt, and very often a self-advertising stunt, in this House with a view to consolidating his position with uninformed public opinion outside, I do not think

it is desirable in the interests of the Services that serving officers should pass over their own representatives and go to a Member of this House. That is a point upon which I think the House if possible should make its will known.
In listening to the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down it occurred to me that I myself had privately approached the First Lord on certain subjects. The things I said to the First Lord of the Admiralty—and I think he will bear me out—were just as critical and pungent as anything put to him by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. But the difference is this: Supposing the First Lord had decided that I was using information which I ought not to use, then he would have been justified in taking steps, not actually in imposing punishment but at any rate of showing his distaste at procedure of that sort on the part of a serving officer. One fact which the House has learned concerning our fighting services is this: the speech to which we have listened from the hon. and gallant Member opposite shows conclusively, once for all, that the grossest mistake was made, possibly due to some political influence, in ever appointing him to the naval staff.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): May I say at the outset that I regret very much that the Debate has arisen in the particular way it has? The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has put a number of questions to me. He had previously put some questions on the Paper for answer at Question Time. I had on more than one occasion—on two occasions at least—asked him in the public interest not to press those Questions. I take the line generally in regard to this and other operations that it is very much against the public interest, even under the privilege of Parliament sitting in public session—

Earl Winterton: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but considering the times we have sat in secret session—to which I have objected—there is no reason why the Government should not have sat in secret to discuss this matter.

Mr. Alexander: It is a question for the House, as the noble Lords knows. But the raising of this matter in this way on


the Adjournment makes it quite impossible for me in any way to reply to the operational questions which the hon. Member has put. At the outset of his speech he said, I think, that he had no intention of attacking either the First Lord or the higher naval staff.

Mr. Stokes: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon, I did not say that. I said I was not raising the matter as a means of whipping the Minister or the staff concerned, but because I considered it a matter of public duty to raise it in this House.

Mr. Alexander: I took my hon. Friend's words down, and he said that he did not raise the matter as a stick with which to beat Ministers or high officers. I must say that as the speech went on it did seem to me to be a very good attempt to beat people up. I must say at once that, at any rate at this moment, I am not prepared to give answers to the questions put by my hon. Friend with regard to operations. Moreover, we are fighting, in a crisis such perhaps as our country has never yet faced, against an enemy of the most unscrupulous and of the most secretive character, who is certainly not prepared to give to anybody the kind of information on operational matters which has been asked for in the House to-day.
I would, for example, have been very glad for the Board of Admiralty to have had a chance of attending an inquest held in public in Germany upon the operation which resulted in the destruction of the "Graf Spee" in the River Plate. The Admiralty would have gained an enormous amount of information with regard to the reasons for certain actions on the part of the German Commander of that ship in the battle. I feel that it is not incumbent upon the House to discuss the details of operations of that kind in the present circumstances, and I do not think anybody here is a more sincere devotee of the Parliamentary system than I am myself. I have had a great many years of Opposition practice here and I have never hesitated to hit hard. I do not mind being hit hard in return, but in the present circumstances I feel that the House must give a large amount of confidence to the Government, with, of course, the inalienable right of

the House, in its full sovereignty, to change the Government if it is not satisfied with the existing one. I must therefore say to the hon. Member for Ipswich that I do not propose to answer the operational questions that he put to me. However, there are one or two things I should like to say to him with regard to the subject of his speech. I do not agree with him that it is not inadvisable to talk about the actual circumstances, because I think it is harrowing to the feelings of relatives. I know full well the extent of the strain and stress, and the volume of sorrow, entailed upon relatives of men who fall in the service of the country. But that questions of that kind should be raised after four months seems to me to be not a right thing to do.

Mr. Stokes: I did not say that it was not harrowing to the feelings of relatives. I said that I thought they would get some satisfaction from a statement that the matter had been properly thrashed out and the responsibility laid in the right place.

Mr. Alexander: I would say, in reply to my hon. Friend, that in fact we ourselves do not know to-day, after the most careful, vigilant and pressing inquiries, what is the extent of the loss of the personnel of His Majesty's Ship "Glorious" and her attendant ships. It is true that the survivors who were rescued in the manner described by the hon. Member only numbered 35, but the German wireless claimed that they had picked up hundreds whom they had made prisoners of war. We have had from them the names of only about half a dozen survivors, which have been published, clearly indicating that some survivors were recovered by the German ships, although we have not been able to get any further names.

Mr. Stokes: Were not those men from other ships?

Mr. Alexander: There were other ships, of course, but the names have been published of men who were members of the crew of the "Glorious" or of one of the destroyers. Therefore, the state of uncertainty remains and I cannot say to-day what is the full extent of the numbers rescued from these ships.
I now turn to the more personal aspect of the question which has been raised


by the hon. and gallant Member for the Cleveland division (Commander Bower). I must say that I very much regret the tone of the attack which he made upon the naval staff, because obviously only one person can be responsible to the House, and that is the First Lord. I should have preferred the attack to be launched upon me and for me to be held responsible to the House.

Commander Bower: I gave my right hon. Friend every possible opportunity in approaching him personally, without any publicity, and all that I got was victimisation. What other alternative had I but to raise the matter in the House?

Mr. Alexander: I am coming to the charges which the hon. and gallant Member makes and I would say that the incidents which have been the subject of his statement in the House to-day are not, of course, the first in respect of which he has had differences with the First Lord about the administration of the Admiralty. There was the case last February which he mentioned, and which necessitated the present Prime Minister, then First Lord, giving the hon. and gallant Member a warning as a member of the naval staff that if the kind of letter that he was then writing were proceeded with it would be necessary to ask him to revert to his Parliamentary duties.

Commander Bower: This is a very important point. I quite admit that I received a reprimand from the then First Lord of the Admiralty because I wrote a letter to one of the Sea Lords and I am perfectly prepared to admit that that was improper. But, and this is what my right hon. Friend has forgotten, at that time the Prime Minister said to me in a letter which I have in my possession:
You had no business to write to the Sea Lord; you ought to have written to me.
And he confirmed my right, which I exercised, to write to the First Lord. The Prime Minister, when he was First Lord, would never have sought to penalise me for writing a constitutional letter to him, but this First Lord did.

Mr. Alexander: I see now what the charge is. I therefore go back to the subject of the letter from which the hon. and gallant Member quoted. Perhaps he will allow me to finish the quotation from the letter: I added to the part which he quoted the following:

I have also already explained to you that in your letter of June 12th you quoted a signal referring to a Cabinet decision, and that you could not have used that signal in your letter as a Member of Parliament unless you had access to it in your capacity as a naval officer; and that it would put any First Lord into an impossible position to have to explain to a Junior Naval Officer, because he was a Member of Parliament, what was the reason for a Cabinet decision referred to in a naval signal which he would never have seen unless he was on the Naval Staff.

Commander Bower: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what on earth is the harm in a Member of Parliament who happens to be a serving officer drawing the attention of the First Lord to a signal which he ought to have seen anyhow and which was not disclosed to any third person?

Mr. Alexander: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I see all important signals, but that is no reason why he should write to me, as a Member of Parliament, a letter asking for an explanation of a signal because it deals with a Cabinet decision. It is impossible for me to do that, and I have made up my mind, Unless Members of Parliament who also desire to serve their country in the position of officers in the fighting services can use proper discretion in such matters, then it is absolutely essential that they should revert to their Parliamentary duties, or alternatively retain their status as an officer and give up their Parliamentary dirties.
On the question of victimisation I submit that there never was any. But that I should not be allowed to show a long letter full of charges against the Naval Staff, to the head of the naval side of the Admiralty, is unthinkable. I remember that the Prime Minister referred in his letter of last February to a complaint he had received from the hon. and gallant Member. To make such a complaint was a reasonable thing to do; but because of that, there was no victimisation of the hon. and gallant Member. I believed that he wished to serve in the Navy to the best of his capacity, in the interests of the country, and I offered him the alternative, instead of reverting to his Parliamentary duties, of taking a sea command. He now infers that the kind of command that he was given was beneath him.

Commander Bower: It was.

Mr. Alexander: I am glad to hear that because it clarifies his complaint. He infers that, because it was offered to him, I was victimising him. He was offered, in relation to his rank and considering his absence from sea duty for a very long period, an appointment as good as anybody could expect. What I wrote to him in my letter of 23rd September—from which he has quoted—provides, I think, conclusive proof of that. I said that I had called for a list of some examples of officers of his seniority, or above, who would have gladly followed the procedure which was offered him. In that list there were two captains and 13 full commanders, who had been to sea in the last few months in command of little trawlers, and even smaller yachts, until they had refreshed their experience of sea command—which was all that I was asking the hon. and gallant Member to do. There was the case of Lieut.-Commander Lord Beatty, who was content to go as a junior officer on a battleship, was then given command of a much smaller anti-submarine vessel than the Fleur de Lys, but who has done so well that he has now been made captain of one of the American destroyers. I dealt with the hon. and gallant Member personally in a perfectly bona fide way. I was determined that if he proved himself in the command that he was given, he would be given a full opportunity of a higher command, more fitting perhaps to what he thought was his right, on his experience. But I am certain that, if he were occupying the kind of position that I am occupying to-day, he would not have offered a sea command to an officer who had not been to sea for many years, until he had had the opportunity of the refresher which I offered to the hon. and gallant Member. I regret that he has taken the line which he has taken on that matter, and has decided that he is better able to serve his country as a Member of Parliament than as a serving naval officer. The suggestion made in his speech that I had been guilty of Gestapo methods or had issued to him a false prospectus of what he could expect in his new appointment, was entirely without foundation. My only regret, in view of his speech is that, instead of giving him the opportunity which I did, of serving his country in a sea command, I did not ask him at once to revert to

the ordinary duties of a Member of Parliament.

Commander Bower: Why does the right hon. Gentleman so despise the ordinary duties of a Member of Parliament? We are ordinary Members of Parliament first, and serving officers second.

Mr. Alexander: The hon. and gallant Member has experience in the two capacities. His experience as a Member of Parliament is, I think, not so long as his experience as a naval officer. He himself chose at the beginning of the war to serve his country as a naval officer, because he thought that he would be able to serve his country better in that capacity.
I come to the direct attack made upon the Naval Staff by the hon. and gallant Member, and the less direct attack by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Any Minister of the Crown at the head of any fighting service in a war like this who is not prepared to be both vigorous and ruthless in dealing with serving officers, whether of high or of low command, does not deserve to remain in office; but where a serving officer is known to the Minister to be doing well, there is no other course for the Minister but to defend him. I have no reason at this moment to do other than to pay tribute to the service, the capacity and the patriotic devotion of the First Sea Lord, who has been so personally mentioned to-day and who has given us very great reason for gratitude. As for the suggestion that he is not in a state of health to continue his work, all I can say is that, day after day and night after night, working usually for about 18 hours out of the 24, and sometimes longer, he has shown a youthfulness and a capacity which some junior officers might well desire to emulate. I will not allow it to be said that this kind of charge is justified. I would add that, in the words of the Prime Minister some months ago—I have not the exact quotation—when it comes to the proper conduct of this war we must be prepared to make whatever changes are required, provided that when the changes are made we make quite sure that we have officers at least as good, and, we hope, better, for performing the duties from which the serving officers in question are being removed.
I hope that, although the hon. Member for Ipswich may think probably that, as he seemed to prophesy, I have evaded


his inquiries, he will also remember that our first, and our only duty, it seems to me, at the moment, is to concentrate upon beating a very ruthless and very vicious enemy. If I thought that by answering in detail the questions which the hon. Member had put to me I could better help to win this war, I would have no hesitation at all, believe me. If the hon. Member considers he has not been given sufficiently courteous treatment, all I would say is that a number of Members of the House would testify that where they have been anxious about certain aspects of the naval conduct of this war, they have not hesitated to come and speak to me personally, and I do not think that any Member who has come to me—with the possible exception of the personal service question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland—has had any reason to complain about

the way his approaches have been met. If I can be of any assistance to Members of this honourable House in satisfying their anxieties or in giving information which would be helpful to them in changing or improving Admiralty policy, I am always at their service.

Mr. Stokes: My right hon. Friend said that I had put Questions down which he had asked me to remove. He will agree that that was some months ago, and that I at once removed them.

Mr. Alexander: I thought I had made it clear that the hon. Member had kindly removed those Questions when I asked him. I only regret that he did not continue to maintain that tradition.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.